IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.342 of 2008 Between: M.Venu Gopal. … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, retpd., by its Principal Secretary to Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana. Counsel for the respondents: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in notifying the election for territorial Constituency Nos.3 and 4 of respondent No.4-Association with defective voters list as illegal, irregular and arbitrary. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is a member and voter of Peddagogulapally Water Users’ Association, C.S.Puram Mandal, Prakasam District. He filed the present Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by non-inclusion of some of the land owners as voters in the voters’ list and improper inclusion of some others, who do not have lands and are not eligible to become members of the association, in the voters’ list. Though no counter-affidavit is filed, ex facie I am of the view that the Writ Petition is misconceived. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition in his individual capacity. It is not his grievance that his name was excluded from the voters’ list. Therefore, he is not personally aggrieved. If some of the landowners, who are eligible to be included in the voters’ list, are excluded, they are personally aggrieved and the petitioner cannot espouse their cause; more so when it is not his plea that he was authorized by them to file the present Writ Petition. As regards inclusion of some persons who are allegedly not owning lands in the said village, they are not impleaded as parties in the Writ Petition. In the absence of impleadment of the said persons, who are likely to be aggrieved by the outcome of the Writ Petition, the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition. There is another reason for this Court’s disinclination to interfere in this case, because once the election notification is issued, the election process is deemed to have been commenced. Ordinarily this Court seldom interferes in the election process after issuance of the notification. The appropriate course for the aggrieved party is to raise an election dispute before the competent tribunal. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:01-6-2009 MNR