THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10716 OF 2011 Dated: 19.04.2011 Between: Gandluru Veera Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10716 OF 2011 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be a native of Kogatam Village. However, he had shifted to Proddatur and started practising as a Dentist. It is stated that his name was enrolled in the voters of Kogatam Village and he wanted to contest in the ensuing bye-elections to Lok Sabha. On verification it was found that his name was deleted from the voters list of Kogatam Village and he was informed that being a resident of Proddatur, he has to make an application for inclusion of his name in the voter’s list of Proddatur only. Immediately he made an application in Form-6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 to the 4th respondent on 16.04.2011. Since 18.04.2011 is the last date for receiving of nominations, he also filed his nomination. Alleging that his application in Form-VI was not considered by the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the voters list of Proddatur Town, 38 Kadapa Parliamentary Constituency along with his nomination, is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is not disputed before this Court that the draft Electors Roll was published in Form-5 on 30.10.2010 as required under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Admittedly the petitioner did not make his claim within the time prescribed under Rule 12. It is also not disputed before this Court that the final publication of Electors Roll was also made on 05.01.2011. In the circumstances, if aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to make an appeal as provided under Rule 23 of the Rules. Having failed to take any such steps, it is not open to the petitioner to seek a Mandamus at this stage for inclusion of his name in the voters list muchless for accepting his nomination. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to workout the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 19.04.2011 Ivd