WA/1273/2006 of The State Election Commission, Vs Gonugunta Venkateswarlu, on 22 December 2006

Conclusion

::JUDGMENT::

Counsel for the appellant : Shri V.V. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Shri M.V. Durga Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 : Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj December 22, 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 Nos. 1 and 2 along with a batch of other petitions with thetitle case N.Sekhar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others –Writ Petition No. 10965 of 2006.

` In the writ petition filed by them, respondent Nos.1 and 2 prayedfor issue of a declaration that the action of the official respondents in nothearing and disposing of the appeal filed by them against the electoralroll published by District Panchayat Officer, Ongole, Prakasam Districtas arbitrary 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 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.

The aforementioned statement of the learned counsel for theappellant has not been contested by the learned counsel for therespondents.

Arguments

Hence, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned SingleJudge is set aside. The detailed reasons recorded in judgment dated 18-12-2006 rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.709 of 2006 shall be read as part of this order. However, liberty is givento respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file election petition to question theelections held on the basis of electoral rolls notified on 08-05-2006. Itshall also be open to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to apply for condonationof delay in filing election petition. If they file such application, then thesame shall be decided by the Election Tribunal in accordance with lawkeeping in view the litigation instituted in this Court.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ appeal, WAMP No. 2597 of2006 filed by the appellant is disposed of as infructuous.

G.S. SINGHVI, CJ

G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J

December 22, 2006

ks