M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. Sri K. Gopal Reddy, claiming to be a public spirited person resorted to this pro bono publico/Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting elections for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in terms of the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and discriminatory violating Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short "G.H.M.C. Act") and issue consequential directions to forthwith conduct elections for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in terms of the Provisions of the G.H.M.C. Act.

2. The petitioner is a resident of Visakhapatnam City and engaged in contracts, besides involvement in political activities of Indian National Congress. He is one of the aspirants to contest in Municipal Corporation elections for the office of Mayor scheduled to be held in future, but on account of non performance of the obligations of the respondents, he could not contest in the elections. His specific contention is that the term of earlier elected Counselors of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation was expired in the year 2012, but the authorities are not conducting elections for the last 5 years even though it is the obligation of the authorities to conduct elections periodically for various offices like Ward members, Mayor etc. Because of the inaction of the respondents in conducting elections for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, the development of Visakhapatnam city is paralyzed at the State level, obviously, based on the directions issued by the leaders of the ruling political party. No law authorized the respondents to differ or withheld the elections indefinitely. Even in terms of G.H.M.C. Act, when the term of the elected council is expired, it is the duty of the respondents to conduct elections for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. As per Section 6 of the G.H.M.C. Act the term of the office of Members is 5 years. Similarly, as per Section 7 of the G.H.M.C. Act, every general election shall be held in the manner prescribed within three months before the day of retirement of Members as specified in Section 6 of the G.H.M.C. Act. The obligation to conduct election is a Constitutional obligation of the authorities and failure to conduct election amounts to disowning their constitutional obligation by the respondents though the election was held in 2007 for a period of five (5) years, which was expired in the year 2012. Obvious reason for not conducting elections is the inability of the respondents to conduct elections and such conduct is utter disregard of constitutional mandate under Article 343-U of Constitution of India. He also made certain allegations about the opinion expressed by a Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in a public meeting to conduct elections for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in the year 2019 and other allegations about the political parties. On account of nonchalant attitude of the respondents herein, the elections were not conducted, which impair the right of the petitioner to participate in the election and requested to issue a direction referred supra.

3. Respondent No. 4 filed counter denying material allegations inter alia contending that the Vishakhapatnam Municipal Corporation was consisting 72 wards while so, in the year 2013 the 1st respondent had issued G.O.Ms. No. 375 dated 30.07.2013 for merger of Anakapalli Municipality along with 5 Grampanchayats namely K. Nagaraapalem, Chapalapada, J.V. Agraharam, Salapuvanipalem, and volluru along with Bheemunipatnam Municipality with 5 Grampanchayats, Kapalupada, Nidigattu, Thadi, Rajupalem and Koppaka as the respective municipalities and Grampanchayats have passed resolutions and in pursuance of the said resolutions the respondent No. 5 had recommended for merger of the An