( 1 ) GOVERNMENT of Andhra Pradesh in municipal Administration and Urban development Department is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal, filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31-7-2000 in Writ Petition No. 14245 of 2001. The parties herein shall be referred to by their status in the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner (1st respondent herein) filed the abovementioned writ petition praying for a declaration that the action of the authorities in not conducting elections to Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, is arbitrary, illegal, violative of fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution and contrary to the provisions contained in part LX-A of the Constitution. The petitioner also prayed for a consequential direction to the respondents, namely the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad and the State election Commission (for short the SEC ) to take immediate steps for the conduct of elections to the 2nd respondent- corporation.

( 3 ) IN the affidavit accompanying the writ petition the petitioner while referring to various provisions of the Constitution, to wit, Articles 40,243-P, 243-R, etc. , states that after coming into force of the Constitution (Seventy Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 with effect from 1-6-1993 the power of the state to make any law for the creation, constitution and working of Municipal corporation is circumscribed by Part IX-A of the Constitution. Therefore, it is stated the law governing Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is required to be in consonance with those provisions of the constitution. In spite of this, for about a decade the residents of the Corporation are deprived of a local self-government. Their failure to conduct elections to the 2nd respondent is in clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent, SEC, has been persistently insisting for conduct of elections and for the said purpose as early as in April, 1998 the said authority organized a conference. At that conference the State Government took a stand that as steps to organise greater Hyderabad are afoot, the elections will be conducted five months after the constitution of greater hyderabad. Though such a period was over, the authorities did not conduct elections. When elections were not held for mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies and Zilla Parishad Territorial constituencies a Division Bench of the High court declared the same impermissible and likewise when elections were not held for certain local bodies under Warangal municipality, a Division Bench of the High court directed to conduct elections. Therefore, the petitioner sought the prayer as noticed hereinabove.

( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed on 13-7-2001. The learned Single Judge before whom the matter was listed for admission, while issuing notice before admission on 13-7-2001 directed the Additional Advocate general to submit the schedule for holding the elections to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In furtherance thereto the 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit on 23-7-2001 along with a statement showing minimum time required for completing the process of notifying the reservation of seats/wards in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and intimating the 3rd respondent for further action.

( 5 ) THE counter-affidavit affirmed by the secretary to the Government in Municipal administration and Urban Development department is to the following effect. In exercise of powers conferred on them under section 585 read with Section 5 (2) of the hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short the Act ) and Section 6 of the a. P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 (for short the Corporations Act ), the government of Andhra Pradesh made municipal Corporation (Reservation of seats) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Reservation Rules ). These deal with reservation of seats in the 2nd respondent as well as of other Corporatio