IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5919 of 2008 Between: Shanti Social Service Organisation, Rep. by N. Rai, General Secretary, R/o. 3-3-520, Chappel Road, Koti, Qutbiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner-Cum-Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Central Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 Additional Commissioner, Health & Sanitation, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 Safai Karmachari Society, Rep. by Ram Sarup Ram, Member, National Commission, Safai Karmacharis Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi. .....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 pass an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the action Notification issued by the Respondent Corporation in daily Newspaper, Deccan Chronicle dt. 23-2-2008 is discriminative and violative under Article 14 of Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.BALACHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following: Oral order: The petitioner claims to be (paragraph No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition) a registered organization bearing registration No. 217/2008. The petitioner does not choose to plead under what enactment is it a registered organization. The petitioner therefore does not spell out the capacity for litigating on a corporate/juristic label. The writ petition is filed challenging the notification inviting applications for pre-qualification for taking up the maintenance of Community and Engineering Toilets in the limits of Central Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. The petitioner has not chosen to implead the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, but has instead impleaded as respondents No. 1 to 3 – The Commissioner-cum-Special Officer; the Central Zonal Commissioner and the Additional Zonal Commissioner, Health and Sanitation, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. As the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is a juristic entity entitled to sue and be sued in the said status, under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, the failure of the petitioner to implead the juristic entity constitutes a vital infirmity in the framework of the writ petition viz., a proper and necessary party has not been impleaded. For the aforesaid two reasons, the writ petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 18-03-2008 Pvks/* Nb:- Furnish c.c. in one week. B/o pvks/*