IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 26342 of 2008 Between: 1 A.Srisailam S/o.Ramappa Sadasivapet Mandal,Medak District 2 M.Srinivas S/o.Anjaiah Sadasivapet Mandal,Medak District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Election Officer, MPP, Sadasivapet Mandal Medak District 2 Mandal Parishad Development officer, MPP Sadasivapet Mandal, Medak District 3 The State Election Commisisoner, Budda Bhavan Ranigunj,Hyderabad .....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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not serving the notice of the meeting on 3.12.2008 elect to the President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Sadasivapet Mandal by giving at least three clear days in advance as arbitrary,illegal, a n d violative of Art.,14 of the Constitution of India contrary to the provisions of AP Panchayat Raj Act and Conduct of Election of Member (co-opted) and President /Vice President of Mandal Parishad and Member (co-opted) and Chairman and Vice Chairman, of Zilla Parishad Rules, (the Rules) and consequently set aside the notice issued in Form- V and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.ELISHA( SC FOR ZPPS AND MPPS,TEL REG) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26342 OF 2008 ORDER: This Court while admitting the writ petition on 2.12.2008 and granting interim stay, however, made it clear that the interim order shall not preclude the respondents from complying with the requirement of Rule 13 after giving 3 clear days notice. While a vacate stay petition was filed soon thereafter, disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition along with the relevant records, respondents have, in view of the liberty granted by this Court, issued notices afresh and thereafter have held the meeting wherein a new President is said to have been elected. In view of the subsequent events, I see no reason to examine the writ petition on merits. Recording the submission made by Sri G.Elisha, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that elections to the post of President, Mandal Parishad have already been held and that the President has taken office, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ___________ 18-12-2008 asp