HON’BLE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No. 19428 of 2006 Between:: Redyam Lakhsmi Prasanna ..Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents. :ORDER: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri K.V. Rajendra Prasad Counsel for respondent No.1 : Government Pleader for Housing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 4 : Shri K.Mohan Rami Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3 : Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.5 : Shri K.Upender Reddy September 20, 2006: Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ The petitioner who claims to be the District President of Telugu Mahila of Kadapa district has filed this petition in the name of public interest for quashing the list prepared by respondent Nos.2 to 5 for allotment of house sites under Integrated Novel Development in Rural Areas and Model Municipal Areas by asserting that a large number of persons included in the list are not eligible for allotment of house sites in terms of the criteria laid down by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.78 Housing (RH-1 Department) dated 16-12-2005 and G.O.Ms.No.15 Housing (RH-1 Department) dated 08-05-2006. We have heard Sri Rajendra Prasad and perused the record. In our opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed summarily because, (i) The petitioner has not impleaded any of the so called ineligible persons as party to the writ petition and without issuing notice and hearing them, no order prejudicially affecting those persons can be passed by the Court. (ii) The petitioner has neither averred nor any document has been placed on record of the writ petition to show that any ineligible person has been allotted house site in furtherance of G.O.Ms.No.78 Housing (RH-1 Department) dated 16-12-2005 and G.O.Ms.No.15 Housing (RH-1 Department) dated 08-05-2006. It is therefore reasonable to take a view that the writ petition is premature. (iii) Except making a bald assertion that she is the District President of Telugu Mahila of Kadapa district, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that her interest in the matter is over and above of that of a by stander. She has neither claimed herself to be a social activist or a social worker nor she has established her locus to question the list prepared by respondent Nos.2 to 5. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 24508 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20-09-2006 pvks