IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.19142 of 2009 Between: Guntuka.Subhashini ..... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary to the Municipal Administration and urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be the Councilor of 5th Ward, Metpally Municipality, Karimnagar District, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the notification, dated 02.09.2009, issued by the fourth respondent-State Election Commission, Andhra Pradesh, fixing date and time of meeting for the election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Metpally Municipality at 11.00 am on 11.09.2009, without issuing notices to all the Councilors as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to conduct elections for the posts of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Metpally Municipality, unless the notices upon all the Councilors are duly served three days in advance, as required under law. When the matter came up for consideration on 10.09.2009, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent- Metpally Municipality submitted that notice has not been served on the petitioner, but it is served on the family members, and in view of the same, the meeting as scheduled was directed to go on, but the result of the same was directed to be not declared. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-State Election Committee produced the record showing that all the Councilors were present at the meeting held on 11.09.2009, except the petitioner and pursuant to the orders of this Court, the result of the meeting was not declared. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not attend the meeting due to personal inconvenience. Having regard to the fact that advance notice as required under law was issued and served on all the Councilors, as is evident from the attendance of Councilors at the meeting held on 11.09.2009, there is no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before issuing the impugned notification, no prior notice was issued to the Councilors. Furthermore, it is the specific stand of the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent that notice was served on the family members of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I see no ground to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the admission stage. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:16.09.2009 Note: Communicate the operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (b/o) VGB