WA/1366/2006 of The State Election Commission, represented by its Vs Akkineni Ravi, on 26 December 2006

Conclusion

::JUDGMENT::

Counsel for the appellant : Shri V.V. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: None Counsel for respondent Nos.3 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 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, which was registered as WritPetition No. 10642 of 2006, respondent Nos.1 and 2 prayed for issue ofa declaration that the action of the official respondents in deleting theirnames from voters list – 2006 in State A.P., Assembly 82, NuzvidConstituency, Machilipatnam Parliament 12 (General) Part No. 78,Village Pothureddipalli, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District and alsodeleting in Pothureddipalli Gram Panchayat Voters List – 2006 pageNo. 1, Nuzvid Revenue Division, Krishna District is 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 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 Nos. 1 and 2 to file electionpetition to question the elections held on the basis of electoral rollsnotified on 08-05-2006. It shall also be open to respondent Nos. 1 and 2to apply for condonation of delay in filing election petition. If they filesuch application, then the same shall be decided by the ElectionTribunal in accordance with law keeping in view the litigation institutedin this Court.

G.S. SINGHVI, CJ

G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J

December 26, 2006

ks