K SRIHARI Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, representing Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions, and Sri Polisetti Radhakrishna, the learned counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) In these writ petitions notice before admission was ordered and interim direction was granted for a limited period, on 08.08.2006, and the same is being extended from time to time. In these writ petitions, the relief prayed for by the writ petitioners is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders passed by the respondents in the respective file numbers specified in the reliefs prayed for, as arbitrary and illegal. Inasmuch as the factual matrix being almost the same, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The respective petitioners had stated that the orders, which were made previously, had been questioned and ultimately statutory appeals under Section 345 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had been preferred, but the first respondent had not taken up the appeals and had not passed any interim orders and in the light of the same, the respective petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petitions and obtained an order of status quo. It is also stated that only when contempt cases are filed, with a view to circumvent and get over the said proceedings, the orders, whicth had been impugned, were passed. In substance, these are the respective stands taken by the writ petitioners in both these writ petitions.