WA/1364/2006 of The State Election Commission, Vs Kanchumati Thirupalu on 26 December 2006

Conclusion

::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 byrespondent No. 1 along with a batch of other petitions with the title case N.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. 10710 of 2006, respondent No.1 prayed for issue of adeclaration that the action of the official respondents in not taking stepsfor deleting the names of bogus voters from the electoral roll ofMarellavaripalem Village, Kammavaripalem Mandal Gram Panchayat,Nuzendla Mandal, Guntur District though applications in Form-VII weresubmitted to them in the month of November, 2005 and appeals werefiled before District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District, is arbitrary andillegal.

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 prepare fresh electoral lists in accordance with the provisions of theConstitution 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.

Arguments

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

December 26, 2006

ks