The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.26741 of 2011 Date: 23.09.2011 Between: 1.K.Vengala Rao and 5 others ..... Petitioners AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, MAUD, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.Venugopal Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.N.Ranga Reddy SC for GVMC The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare election notice bearing Rc.No.18A/2010/Secy.Sec./GVMC, dated 16-09-2011, of the respondents, in respect of election to the Standing Committee of respondent No.2- Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P.Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), representing respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioners, who are Corporators of respondent No.2- Corporation, is that the impugned election notification is issued contrary to the provisions of Section 7 (4) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, which ordains that no casual election shall be held to the Municipal Corporation within six months before expiry of the term of office of members, and that as the term of the Corporators of respondent No.2- Corporation is expiring by February, 2012, the impugned election notice is in the teeth of the said statutory provision. Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2- Corporation, submitted that as, admittedly, an election notification has been issued, the bar contained in Article 243 (Z) (g) of the Constitution of India, on entertaining this Writ Petition by this Court, is attracted. I find merit in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. Section 243 (z) (g) of the Constitution of India creates a bar on calling in question the election to any municipality except by way of an election petition. The law is well settled that the term ‘election’ comprehends all the stages from the date of issuance of election notification till declaration of the result (see N.P.Ponnuswamy vs. Returning Officer[1] and Mahinder Singh Gill and another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others[2]). Since the election to the Standing Committee of respondent No.2- Corporation is also comprehensively covered by the above-noted constitutional provision, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the election, they are entitled to move an election petition, as envisaged by the above- mentioned provision. Subject to the liberty as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.33013 of 2011, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 23rd September, 2011 LUR [1] 1952 AIR 64 [2] 1978 AIR 851