IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3800 of 2008 Between: 1 N.Chandramouli, S/o.Late N.C.Linganna, R/o.D.No.13-1-106, M.G.Colony Anantapur Town, Anantapur District. 2 M.Durgesh, S/o.Late M.Ramappa, R/o.D.No.4-436, 4th Road, Anantapur Town, Anantapur Dist ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Municipal Commissioner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Anantapur. 2 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderbad. 3 Sai Maheshwara Educational Society, having its Office at D.No.18-1-153, Venugopala Nagar, Anantapur-515001, rep.by its President Sri K.Munirathnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus the G.O.M.S No.746 M.A Municipal Administration and urban Development (J) Department, dt.04-10-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and against the provisions of the Municipal Law and consequently direct the 1st respondent commissioner not to take steps of proceed ahead to enter into lease with the 3rd respondent in further of the G.O.dt.04-10-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2 : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.3800 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. This Writ of Mandamus is filed seeking to declare the G.O.Ms.No.746, M.A., Municipal Administration and Urban Development (J) Department, dated 04-10-2007, issued by the second respondent as illegal and against the provisions of the Municipal Law and consequently direct the first respondent Commissioner not to take steps to proceed ahead to enter into lease with the third respondent in furtherance of the said G.O. 3. When this writ petition came up for admission before a learned Single Judge of this Court, from the record, it could be seen that the learned Single Judge had opined that no private interests of the petitioners were involved in this writ petition and, therefore, it required to be treated as the one filed under public interest. Accordingly, the matter had been placed before the Division Bench. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are aggrieved by the provision for leasing out the property of the Municipal Corporation as contemplated under Section 148 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for brevity “the Act”). 5. Be that as it may, in the present case, the first respondent- Municipal Commissioner never placed the request of the third respondent-society, as reflected by its letter, dated 27-11-2006, before the General Body of the Corporation and never endeavoured to obtain its previous sanction, as envisaged under the above provisions of the Act. In other words, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the first respondent-Corporation has been acting in violation of the provisions of Section 148 of the Act. 6. At the outset, we are of the view that this matter cannot be treated as a Public Interest Litigation, at all, for the reason that the parameters of the Public Interest Litigation, as envisaged by the apex Court as well as this Court, time and again, are not satisfied. 7. It is to be seen that the petitioners are the Corporators. Certain duties are cast upon them. For all purposes, they are part and parcel of the first respondent-Corporation as well as its administration. In many ways, they are the instrumentalities for the commissions and omissions on the part of the first respondent- Corporation. Therefore, any such commissions or omissions by the Corporation cannot be questioned by a party, who is closely linked with the day-to-day administration of the first respondent-Corporation. If at all, there is any private grievance, the same, perhaps, can be challenged by way of a civil suit or in any other method known to law. Being the active Members of the first respondent-Corporation, in the capacity of Corporators, we are of the view, discipline is required on the part of the petitioners not to resort to this kind of litigation i.e., by way of challenging the orders of the Government, which were being implemented by the first respondent-Corporation itself. 8. For certain, the petitioners, being the Corporators, cannot act adverse to the interest of the first respondent-Corporation, which is no other than an instrumentality of the State. 9. Furthermore, obviously, the petitioners do not have any authorization from the first respondent-Corporation to file this writ petition. Normally, it is only the first respondent-Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, would approach the Court of law, if aggrieved by any commission or omission of the State. But, surprisingly, the petitioners-Corporators, who are the Members of the Local Body, are challenging the action of the first respondent- Corporation as well as the action of the Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.746, dated 04-10-2007, particularly when the said G.O., is being implemented by the first respondent-Corporation. 10. For the foregoing, the present litigation appears to be totally misconceived. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI 02-05-2008. Msr. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Municipal Commissioner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Anantapur. 2 The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderbad. 3 Sri K.Munirathnam, President, Sai Maheshwara Educational Society, having its Office at D.No.18-1-153, Venugopala Nagar, Anantapur-515001, 4. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT). 5. Two CD copies THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.3800 of 2008 02-05-2008 (Msr)