THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Rev.W.P.M.P.Nos.5338 & 5353 of 2011 in Writ Petition No.2256 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: These two review petitions are ﬁled by respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.No.2256 of 2007, with a prayer to review the judgment dated 28-07-2010, passed in that writ petition. W.P.No.2256 of 2007 and two other writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.7003 of 2006 and 18257 of 2008 were heard together and a common judgment was rendered on 28-07- 2010. Henceforth, the petitioners are referred to, as respondents 6 and 7. The proceedings issued by the Government for deletion of certain areas from Kandukur Municipality were challenged. In W.P.No.2256 of 2007, the respondents 6 and 7 were impleaded by name, attributing mala ﬁdies. It was pleaded that the 6th respondent, who is a Member of Legislative Assembly, from that area, and the 7th respondent, who functioned as Special Oﬃcer for the Municipality have played important role in bringing about the G.O., for deletion of certain areas. Respondents 6 and 7 were served with notice in the writ petition, but they did not choose to enter appearance. In the judgment, certain observations were made as to their conduct. In his review petition, the 6th respondent stated that the notice sent in the writ petition was received by his wife, and on account of misplacement of the relevant papers, he did not know about the fact that a writ petition, in which, he ﬁgured as a party by name, has been ﬁled. On merits also, he stated that the steps for deletion of the areas from the Municipality did not commence with the representation, and almost from the time, the Nagar Panchayat was upgraded as Municipality, representations were being made for deletion of certain areas, which are located at far oﬀ place. According to him, he has only reiterated the public demand, that was already in existence, and that he did not have any prejudice or liking towards anyone. The 7th respondent stated that by the time the writ petition was ﬁled, he ceased to be the Special Oﬃcer, and thereafter, a major calamity had occurred in his family. He submits that except complying with the directions issued by the various authorities from time to time, he did not take any independent decision. Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the 6th respondent, Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration. The writ petitions were disposed of after undertaking a prolonged hearing, spread over a long period, and after the entire record pertaining to the matter was summoned. This Court expressed its dissatisfaction as regards the manner in which the whole issue was dealt with. Speciﬁc lapses, noticed in the process were pointed out. The writ petitioners were certainly justiﬁed in impleading respondents 6 and 7, by name. The notices were served, as provided for in law, and it cannot be said that there was any defect in the manner in which the notices are served. It is not as if the respondents 6 and 7 are not conversant with the Court procedure, or that they did not take part in the entire process. In case the allegations made by the writ petitioners against them are not true, they could have certainly entered appearance and presented the facts, which, they are now attempting to do. This Court has made certain observations, as to the acts and omissions on the part of the respondents 6 and 7. The respondents 6 and 7 are under the impression that this Court was not aware of the existence of representations for deletion of the area, for quite a long time. The emphasis added by this Court was only to the effect that the matter gained impetus on account of the representation made by the 6th respondent, and the steps taken by the 7th respondent. The entire record was perused and various stages in the matter were taken note of. Be that as it may, the respondents 6 and 7 have furnished particulars of the representations, that were being made from time to time, as well as the resolutions passed by the Municipality on the subject. Specific reference to such resolutions would to some extent, have dissuaded this Court from making the observations, that occur in one paragraph, spread over pages 26 and 27. Further, deletion of the said paragraph does not have any impact upon the rest of the judgment, nor respondents 6 and 7 seriously pressed for any change in the purport thereof. Hence, the Review Petitions are allowed, to the extent of directing deletion of a paragraph, starting with “The role played by respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the whole episode was indeed objectionable and alarming”, and ending with “they have even mentioned that they do not press for any immediate allocation of funds and amelioration of conditions”. Further, the direction, awarding costs against them, is also deleted. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.07-12-2011. KO