IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17565 of 2000 Between: Ch.Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o.Sri Sathi Raju, Member of 5th Ward, Uppalaguptam Village & Mandal, East Godavari District, R/o.East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhr Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The State Election Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Budha Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer and Deputy District Election Authority, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 4 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Parishad, Uppalaguptam, East Godavari District. ..RESPONDENTS . Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ABINAND KUMAR SHAVALI for MR K.S.V.SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: ---- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for the following substantive relief: “It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court in the interests of Justice be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) Declaring the action of the respondents in following the principles of drawl of lots for determining the reservation of seats to scheduled caste or backward classes without taking into account the population/voter strength in the respective ward as arbitrary, illegal and violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and Rules made there under; b) consequently direct the respondents to review the entire situation duly taking into account the strength of the voters and reserve the seats strictly in accordance with the population/voter strength and pass such other or further order or orders as are deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case”. At the hearing, Sri Abinand Kumar Shavali, learned counsel representing Sri K.S.V.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th November, 2008 vrn