ORDER : 1. It is indeed unfortunate that the petitioner, Smt.N.Tulasi Ravi, Vice President, City Corporation, Chintamani, Chikkaballapura District, has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent No.2, the President of the same City Corporation, Chintamani, Chikkaballapura, who, according to the petitioner, has failed to convene any meeting of the City Corporation to address the public grievances, which the petitioner is said to have received and represented to the respondent No.2 to convene the meeting of the City Corporation, so that the issues of public grievance can be discussed in such meetings and appropriate resolutions may be passed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced copies of the two representations namely, Annexure-A, dated 13.11.2015 and Annexure-C, dated 08.03.2016, as well as a copy of the order at Annexure-B, dated 18.01.2016, passed by the Commissioner of the said City Corporation calling upon reports from the learned Engineers and the Revenue Officials of the City Corporation, with regard to the public grievances raised by the petitioner, Vice President. 3. These documents in vernacular language were explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner, with the assistance of Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned Additional Government Advocate, who is appearing in the matter, for the convenience and understanding of the same by this Court. 4. The prayer made in the writ petition, though, prima-facie, appears to be an innocuous prayer seeking a mandamus direction to respondent No.2 to convene such meeting, but this Court is of the clear opinion that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for these affairs which are essentially internal matters of the governance of a publicly elected body like the City Corporation, is a sheer abuse of process of court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. If the two top elected persons of the elected body like the City Corporation, do not have even the simple coordination between them for convening of meeting to address the public grievances and the petitioner, Vice President has to seek the aid of the mandamus jurisdiction of this Court, less said, better it would be, for the manner in which such public bodies are functioning in the State. 6. 6. The petitioner also does not appear to have brought these grievances to the notice of a higher official of the State of Karnataka, like the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned, before approaching this Court and it seems that even though the Commissioner working in the City Corporation itself has initiated some action by calling the reports of the Engineers and Revenue Officials concerned in the present case, no such meeting have been held of the elected persons in the City Corporation to discuss such various issues raised by the petitioner, Vice President of the City Corporation. 7. None the less, it is not for this Court to invoke its writ jurisdiction to supervise the working of the City Corporations in this manner and it is for the petitioner to approach the higher authorities in the hierarchy of the governance of the Municipal bodies for redressal of the grievance in the matter about not holding of the meeting by the respondent No.2. 8. While dismissing the present writ petition as not maintainable, this Court leaves it free for the petitioner to approach the concerned Deputy Commissioner and even higher authorities, in this regard, if necessary. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Karnataka, for information and needful action in the matter.