IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7519 of 2009 Between: Sri M.M.G. Ranga Rao S/o. Late Sri M. Radha Krishna Murthy R/o. H.No. 9-8-47, Brahmin Bazar, Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Law (LA&J- HOME-COURTS.A2) Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Election Commissioner Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Dinesh Kumar Patel S/o. Sri Karsan Bahi Patel R/o. H.No.4-3-77, Timber Market Road, Khammam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, holding that the impugned order issued vide G.O.Rt.No.522 dated 31-03-2009 by the Respondent No.1 is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules of the Election Code and consequentially to set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BADRI PREMNATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7519 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner advocate, who was appointed as an Additional Public Prosecutor on 03-03-2005 in the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, questions the action of the State Government in appointing the 3rd respondent as an Additional Public Prosecutor in his place i.e., in the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, vide the impugned G.O.Rt.No.522, dated 31-03-2009, violating the Election Code. The three year term of the petitioner is already over. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appointment of the 3rd respondent is in violation of the Election Code or whether prior approval was obtained by the State Government from the Election Commission before appointing the 3rd respondent as an Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent placed before us the proceedings dated 28-03-2009 evidencing that approval was obtained from the Election Commission before appointing the 3rd respondent as an Additional Public Prosecutor. In view of the aforesaid approval obtained from the Election Commission before appointing the 3rd respondent as an Additional Public Prosecutor, we do not see any violation of the Election Code. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date : 28-04-2009 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}