HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO.12112 OF 2006 Between: Rayarakula Mogili ..... Petitioner AND The A.P. State Election Commission, Rep. by its Commissioner, Secunderabad, & others. .....Respondents :: O R D E R:: Counsel for the Petitioner : Shri S. Chalapati Rao Counsel for Respondent No. 1 : Shri V.V. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Shri R. Prem Sagar Dated: 27.07.2006 Per G.S.Singhvi, CJ On 25.07.2006, a batch of 58 cases, including this petition, was listed before the Court. At the commencement of hearing, Shri V.V.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate representing Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission made a statement that the common prayer made in all the petitions is for issue of a direction to the respondents to decide the applications made by the petitioners for inclusion of their names in the voters’ list and that the concerned authorities will deal with and decide such applications within a period of 48 hours, which shall be communicated to the applicants. In view of the statement of Shri V.V.Prabhakar Rao, all the petitions were disposed of by a common order, which was dictated in the open Court. In the evening, the Court Master informed us that out of the batch of 58 petitions, 13 petitions contain different prayers. He pointed out that in some of the petitions prayers have been made for inclusion in and exclusion from the voters’ list, in some cases prayer has been made for issue of direction to the authority concerned to accept nomination paper and in one case, prayer is to quash the reservation of the office of Sarpanch. In view of the submissions made by the Court Master, we directed that the 13 petitions shall not be included in the order passed in the open Court on 25.07.2006 and they be listed on 27.07.2006 under the caption ‘for being mentioned’. This is the reason why the 13 matters have been listed today. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to accept his nomination paper for Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency of Shyampet Mandal. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the writ petition may be disposed of as infructuous because election for the concerned Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency has already taken place. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27.07.2006 ksld