IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 27123 of 2008 Between: Merugu Chennaiah S/o. M. Chinna Santaiah R/o. Chinnaya Palli Village. H/o. Siddavaram Gram Panchayat, Porumomilla Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Kadapa. 2 The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Praja Parishad Kadapa. 3 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer Porumomilla Mandal Praja Parishad Porumomilla, Kadapa District. 4 S. Pedda Rami Reddy Siddavaram Village, Porumomilla Mandal, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate Writ or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents 1 & 2 in passing appropriate order on the complaint dated 15-10-2007 submitted by the Petitioner against the continuation of the 4th respondent in dual posts as illegal, irregular, arbitrary unjustified and unsustainable and direct the Respondents 1 & 2 to immediately decide about the disqualification suffered by the 4th respondent to continue as MPTc. Member of Siddavaram, Porumomilla Mandal, Kadapa District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 27123 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in considering the petitioner’s representation dated 15-10-2007 complaining that the 4th respondent herein is continuing in dual posts and thus disqualified for continuing as member of the Siddavaram MPTC is arbitrary and illegal. As could be seen from the material placed before this Court, the representation dated 15-10-2007 was addressed to the 1st respondent-District Collector, Kadapa and in turn the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for necessary enquiry. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s representation is pending before the respondents 1 and 2, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the 4th respondent to rebut the allegations made by the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 12-12-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in 3 days. B/o KLP