IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21053 of 2002 Between: Kunuku Rajasekhar S/o.Appa Rao Seethannapet Vijayawada-520003 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P. Rep by its Secretary to Government Muncipal Admistration & Urban Development (NI) Dept, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Rep by its Commissioner Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Muncipal Admn. & Urban Dev. Counsel for Respondent No.2: Smt. G. Jhansi, Standing Counsel The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner who is a Corporator of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation filed this writ petition for issue of a mandamus to set aside G.O.Rt.No.617 MA, dated 23-05-2002 issued by respondent No.1. The petitioner also sought for a declaration that G.O.Rt.No. 638 MA, dated 28-05-2002 issued by respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Section 679-A of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondent No.1 and Smt. G. Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. By G.O.Rt.No.638 MA, dated 28-05-2002, respondent No. 1 permitted respondent No. 2 to outsource maintenance of services, namely, 42 parks, six kalyana mandapams and one vehicle depot. By resolution Nos. 621 and 646 dated 27-06-2001, respondent No. 2 accepted the proposal of one Ch. Baburao, 24th Ward Member to withdraw the proposals for outsourcing. On the Commissioner of respondent No.2 Corporation moving respondent No. 1, the latter issued G.O.Rt.No. 617 MA dated 23-05-2002, whereby it suspended council’s resolution Nos. 621 and 646, dated 27-06-2001. In doing so, respondent No. 1 exercised its power under Section 679-A (1) of the Act. This G.O is questioned in this writ petition. Respondent No. 2 filed a counter affidavit wherein the decision of the Corporation to outsource maintenance work is sought to be justified. Respondent No. 1 has not filed any counter affidavit. Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of the order passed by the Government which is purely interim, I am not inclined to adjudicate the writ petition on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. While respondent No. 1 is empowered to suspend the resolutions of Corporation if it finds that they are in contravention of or in excess of powers conferred by the Act or of any law for the time being in force, under clause (c) of Section 679(2), the Government is empowered to revise, modify or revoke any such order of suspension on the representation made by the Corporation or otherwise. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner ought to have moved respondent No. 1 under the above mentioned provision to revise or annul the decision taken in G.O.Rt.No. 617 MA, dated 23-05-2002 instead of rushing to the Court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits by permitting the petitioner to move respondent No. 1 for the nullification of the impugned G.O, if respondent No. 1 has not already varied or revoked the impugned G.O. No order as to costs. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 26335 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03-03-2009 ks