IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 701 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/05/2009 in WP NO : 26066 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: D. Ramakrishna Reddy, s/o. Appi Reddy, Working at Mandal Praja Parishad, Tangutur. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Tanguturu Mandal Praja Parishad, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District, rep. by its President Hyderabad. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Secretary rep. by its Principal Secretary, PR & RD, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Panchayat Bhavan, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. 4 The Chief Executive Officer, Ongole Zilla Parishad, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 701 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in WPMP No. 5481 of 2009 in W.P. No.26066 of 2008,dated 1.5.2009 whereunder the learned single Judge refused to recall the order dated 12.2.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 26066 of 2008. The 1st respondent herein filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single judge challenging the proceedings bearing Rc. No. P6/4303/2008, dated 3.11.2008 whereunder the appellant herein was posted as MPDO of Tangutur Mandal. On 28.11.2008, this Court while admitting the said writ petition, passed an interim order in W.P.M.P. No.34111 of 2008, which reads thus: “It is the case of the petitioner that posting of the fourth respondent as MPDO, Tangutur Mandal Parishad is contrary to the directions given by the second respondent-the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, dated 10.10.2008, wherein the Commissioner has directed specifically not to post the persons in their native Mandals. In the circumstances, the order dated 03.11.2008 passed by the third respondent is suspended until further orders.” In pursuance of the aforesaid interim order, revised proceedings were issued by the 4th respondent on 2.12.2008, posting the appellant as MPDO of Lingasamudram Mandal. Consequent upon the issuance of the aforesaid proceedings by the third respondent, the 1s t respondent withdrew the writ petition on 12.2.2009, and, as against the dismissal of the said writ petition, the appellant filed the aforementioned W.P.M.P. No. 5481 of 2009 before the learned single judge seeking to recall the said order. The learned single judge, through the order impugned in this appeal, while declining to recall the said order, dismissed the WPMP. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under appeal. In view of the fact that the revised proceedings came to be issued by the 4th respondent posting the appellant as MPDO of Lingasamudram Mandal, in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court and in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition on 12.2.2009, basing on the revised proceedings issued by the 4th respondent, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single judge and admit the writ appeal. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to challenge the revised proceedings dated 2.12.2008 of the 4th respondent, independently, in appropriate proceedings. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 8th July, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb