IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12263 of 2006 Between: Kandula Venkata Hanuma Kumar S/o.Pandu Ranga Rao R/o.Koyyalagudem, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Election Commissioner, Budha Bhavan, Secunderabad 2 The District Collector, District Election Authority, West Godavari District, Eluru 3 The Election Officer, Mandala Praja Parishad, Koyyalagudem, West Godavari district .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the voters list of Mandal Praja Parishad, Koyyalagudem and preparation of A.P.Gram panchayat Act,1994 and the Rules made there under and also the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner herein on the ground that his name is not found in the voters list as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, highhanded and violative of the provisions of A.P. Gram Panchayat Act,1994 and the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.755 dated 30.11.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.254 dated 4.8.2000 and consequently direct the respondents to scrutinize the nomination of the petitioner and accept the same forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. MR. V.V. PRABHAKARA RAO The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12263 of 2006 ORDER: Since this writ petition was filed in the year 2006 aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the voters’ list and rejection of his nomination on that ground for the elections held in the year 2006, nothing survives for adjudication on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to workout the appropriate remedy in case his grievance as to non-inclusion of his name in the voters’ list still subsists. No order as to costs. ________________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI 21st July, 2008. IBL