Telangana High Court
WA/1360/2006 of The State Election Commission, rep. by its Vs Shaik Masthanvali on 26 December 2006
JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY Writ Appeal No.1360 of 2006 Between: The State Election Commission, Rep., by its Joint Secretary, G.M. Ramesh Kumar, S/o Late M.B. Naidu, Aged 58 years, III Floor, Buddha Bhavan, Ranigunj, Secunderabad … Appellant
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVIANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHYWrit Appeal No.1360 of 2006
Between:The State Election Commission,Rep., by its Joint Secretary,G.M. Ramesh Kumar, S/o Late M.B. Naidu,Aged 58 years, III Floor, Buddha Bhavan,Ranigunj, Secunderabad … Appellant
And
Shaik Masthanvali and four others
… Respondents
::JUDGMENT::
Counsel for the appellant : Shri V.V. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent No.1 : None Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 : Advocate General December 26, 2006
Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ
This appeal is directed against order dated 20-06-2006 passed bythe learned Single Judge, whereby he allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 along with a batch of other petitions with the title caseN.Sekhar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others – WritPetition No. 10965 of 2006.
In the writ petition filed by him, which was registered as WritPetition No. 10962 of 2006, respondent No.1 prayed for issue of adeclaration that the action of the official respondents in deleting thenames of valid voters while refusing to exclude ineligible voters from thevoters list of Appapuram Gram Panchayat, Nadendla Mandal, GunturDistrict and not disposing of the appeals filed by the affected parties isarbitrary and illegal.
The learned Single Judge briefly referred to the factual matrix ofthe writ petitions, but did not deal with the individual grievance anddisposed of the entire batch of writ petitions by a common order dated20-6-2006, the operative part of which reads as under:
“150. In view of the fact that by virtue of supersessionmade in G.O.Ms.No.254 constitutional, legislative andsubordinate legislation vacuum had been created the validity orotherwise of the said Rules need not be gone into and hence thesaid question is left open. However, a Writ of Mandamus asprayed for is issued quashing the consequential notificationissued on 10-6-2006 which is long subsequent to filing of the WritPetitions and just one day after the passing of the order by theDivision Bench, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Article243-K of the Constitution of India and Sections 11, 12, 201 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and consequentlythis Court also declares that all the electoral lists drawn in thisregard are not in accordance with the provisions of theConstitution, the statutory provisions, or the subordinateLegislations inasmuch as they suffer from the Constitutionalbankruptcy, Legislative bankruptcy and subordinate legislativebankruptcy as well and further direct the respondents to preparefresh electoral lists in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and also the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat RajAct, 1994, if need be, by filling the requisite subordinatelegislation as well.”
Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to thejudgment dated 18-12-2006 rendered by the Division Bench in WritAppeal No. 709 of 2006 – Government of Andhra Pradesh v.N.Sekhar and others and batch, whereby order dated 20-6-2006passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10965 of 2006and batch was reversed, and submitted that this appeal may be allowedin similar terms.
We have carefully perused the record and are satisfied that thisappeal deserves to be allowed in terms of judgment of Writ Appeal No.709 of 2006 and batch. Ordered accordingly. The detailed reasonsrecorded in judgment dated 18-12-2006 rendered by the Division Benchin Writ Appeal No. 709 of 2006 shall be read as part of this order. However, liberty is given to respondent No. 1 to file election petition toquestion the elections held on the basis of electoral rolls notified on 08-05-2006. It shall also be open to respondent No. 1 to apply forcondonation of delay in filing election petition. If he files suchapplication, then the same shall be decided by the Election Tribunal inaccordance with law keeping in view the litigation instituted in thisCourt.
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J
ks