THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.264 of 2010 .04.2011 Between: Prabhunath Vasireddy (Party in person) …. Petitioner AND The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Law, New Delhi And others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.264 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a practising advocate in this Court. Being aggrieved by the proposals of the third respondent recommending the names of four advocates of this Court for being appointed as Judges of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, he filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the recommendation made by the third respondent as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for consequential direction to the first respondent to reject the recommendations of the third respondent and further direct the respondents 1 to 4 to initiate fresh selection process for all the existing vacancies of the Judges of High Court of Andhra Pradesh by considering all eligible persons belonging to all sections of the society. The case of the petitioner as alleged in the affidavit to the extent necessary for disposing of the writ petition, in brief, is as follows. The third respondent initiated the proposals by recommending only four advocates to fill up four vacancies though there are considerable number of vacancies to be filled up. While selecting four advocates for sending proposal, all other eligible candidates from different social groups were not considered and without verifying the antecedents, four names were proposed by the third respondent. The petitioner alleges that the selection and recommendation is vitiated by favoritism and political patronage. The petitioner also made allegations about the unnamed four advocates (not made parties to this writ petition), whose names were allegedly recommended for being appointed as Judgeship. We, however, feel that it is not necessary to refer to these allegations. Initially, this writ petition was listed before a Bench consisting one of us (VVSR,J) for orders on the objections raised by the Registry with regard to the array of the parties. The office objections were overruled and the writ petition was directed to be processed further. The matter again came up before this Bench for admission on 01.04.2011. Having regard to the fact that the matter has been at the admission stage for more than a year, we directed the counsel representing the learned Advocate General to place before this Court the latest position vis-à-vis the recommendation made by the third respondent to the respondents 1 and 2 in the matter of appointment of Judges. The matter was again listed on 08.04.2011 when the Advocate General sought time to get instructions from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. When the matter was called yesterday for preliminary arguments as to admission of the case, the learned Advocate General submits that the recommendations made by the third respondent have been returned by the Government of India and that he has personally perused the confidential correspondence between the constitutional authorities. We record the same. In view of this, we are also of considered opinion that having regard to settled law that the justiciability and judicial review are very limited in these matters as held by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v Union of India[1], it would not be proper for us, at this stage, to go into any issue, as the cause of action itself does not survive. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _______________________________ (VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J) 28.04.2011 Pln [1] (2009) 8 SCC 273