[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Thummala Hemanth Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 August, 2025
APHC010425852025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 21648 OF 2025
Between:
1. ERRAGAM REDDY SUBBA REDDY, S/o E Venkata Subba Reddy Aged
about 52 years, Occ Politician, R/o. 2-136, Kothamadavaram, YSR
Cuddapah.
...Petitioner
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The State Election Commission, Room No.192, Ground Floor, Building
No.5 A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati rep., by its Commissioner.
3. The District CollectorcumElection Officer, Y.S.R Kadapa District, Kadapa.
4. The Returning Officer, Vontimetta ZPTC elections, Y.S.R. District.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Y.S.R Kadapa District.
6. The Deputy Inspector of General, Kurnool Range, Andhra Pradesh
7. Muddu Krishna Reddy, S/o not known Contesting candidate of ruling party.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: GOUTHAMI SURAPAREDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: KALEPU YASHWANTH Counsel for the
Respondents:GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the
Respondents:GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR
MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
2
WRIT PETITION NO: 21661 OF 2025
Between:
1. Thummala Hemanth Reddy,, S/o. Late Thummala Maheswara Reddy Aged
about 25 years, R/o. Door No.1-155-A, R.Thummalappali Village, Pulivendula
Mandal Y.S.R Kadapa District.
…Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principai Secretary, Panchayat
Raj and Rurai Development, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.
2. The State Election Commission, Room No.192, Ground Fioor, Building
No.5, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati rep., by its Commissioner.
3. The District CollectorcumEiection Officer, Y.S.R Kadapa District, Kadapa.
4. The Returning OfficercumSpecial Deputy Coilector, Land Acquisition
Officer, National High Ways, Kadapa.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, Y.S.R Kadapa District.
6. The Deputy Inspector of General, , Kurnool Range, Andhra Pradesh
7. Mareddy Latha Reddy, D/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o. D.N0.4-34A,
Kasanuru Viiiage, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
8. Moyila Siva Kalyan Reddy, , S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o.
D.No.1/22, Chinna Kudaala Village, Lingaala Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
9. Ankireddy Suresh Kumar Reddy, , S/o. A. Chinna Pullareddy, Aged about
46 years, R/o. D.No.3-42, Sydapuram Village, Thondur Mandal, YSR
Kadapa District.
10. Thummaluru Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o.
D.No.2/20, Pernapadu Village, Vemula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
11. Nagella Samba Siva Reddy, S/o. N. Ankireddy, Aged about 65 years,
R/o. D.No.3-5, Pernapadu Village, Vemula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
12. B Raveendra Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramireddy, Aged about 55 years,
R/o. D.N0.2-27-B, Mallela Village, Thondur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
13. Marujolu Gajendranath Reddy, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner R/o.
D.No.2-34, Rayalapuram, R. Thummalapalle Village, Pulivendula Mandal,
YSR Kadapa District.
3
14. Mareddy Jai Bharath Reddy, , S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o.
D.N0.4-34A, Kasanuru Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
15. M Vengala Reddy, S/o. M. Pedda Bali Reddy, Aged about 49 years, R/o.
D.No.4-8-197-2-2, Narayana College Road, Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa
District.
16. Yadati Suneel Reddy, , S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o. D.No.3/111,
Mottu Nuthana Palli, E. Kothapalli, Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
…Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR HOME Counsel for the
Respondents:GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the
Respondents:SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the
Respondents:GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in
W.P.No.21661 of 2025; Sri S. Sri Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing
(online) on behalf of Sri Gouthami Surapareddy, learned Counsel for the Writ
Petitioner in W.P.No.21648 of 2025; Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Shaik Md. Ismail, learned Counsel for the
Respondent No.14 in W.P.No.21661 of 2025 and also on behalf of Sri K.
Yashwanth, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.21648 of
2025; Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General for the State and
Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for State Election
Commission appeared through online.
2. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the inaction on the part of
the State Election Commission in acting on the Representations made by the
Writ Petitioners complaining of various irregularities in the by-election held on
12.08.2025 of Vontimitta Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) and
Pulivendula Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC).
4
3. The prayer sought in W.P.No.21661 of 2025 is as under:
“…… to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the
part of the respondents No.2 to 4 in declaring that the elections in all
fifteen (15) Polling Stations of Pulivendula Zilla Parishad Territorial
Constituency are vitiated and going for Repoll, instead of two (2)
Pollling Stations i.e., 3 & 14 Polling Stations and ordering for repoll,
inspite of brining to their notice that all the Polling Stations of
Pulivendula Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency have been captured
by the leaders and supporters of the ruling party for benefitting the
respondent No.7 in the present election to the post of ZPTC Member
of Pulivendula Constituency as arbitrary, illegal, abdication of the
statutory duty cast on them and contrary to the principles of
democracy apart from being violative of the fundamental rights
guaranteed me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and consequently direct
(a) the respondents No.2 to 4 to call for the CCTV footages and
Web-casting videos related to the Polling Stations No.1, 2, 4 to 13 and
15 of Pulivendula Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency and examine
the same in the presence of the contesting candidates and to take a
decision as to whether they are any irregularities or illegalities in
conducting elections and
(b) direct of the respondents No.2 to 4 to declare the elections
taken place in Polling Stations No. 1,2,4 to 13 and 15 of Pulivendula
Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency are vitiated in case the
respondents No.2 to 4 found that there are irregularities and illegal in
conducting elections therein and to conduct re-election in said Polling
Stations also with adequate police security by deploy Central Armed
Reserved Force and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case”.
4. Since the facts relate to the alleged irregularities committed by the
sympathizers and supporters of the Ruling Party candidates and there is
inaction on the part of the Official Respondents despite the fact that the Writ
Petitioners have made several Representations, the present Writ Petitions are
filed. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, these Writ Petitions were
heard together at the admission stage and the present Common Order is
passed.
5. Before commencement of the arguments on behalf of the Writ
Petitioners, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.21648 of 2025 and Respondent No.14 in
5
W.P.No.21661 of 2025 has raised a preliminary objection as regards the
maintainability of these Writ Petitions.
Submissions of the Writ Petitioners
6. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ
Petitioner in W.P.No.21661 of 2025 had led the arguments and has taken this
Court through the averments in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ
Petition. He had submitted that the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court
for seeking stay of the conduct of by-election by filing W.P.No.21208 of 2025
inasmuch as the Official Respondents have shifted polling stations without
following the due process of law. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
vide Order dated 11.08.2025, the said Writ Petition was dismissed on the
ground that the Court could not interfere inasmuch as the date of polling is
scheduled on the next date i.e., 12.08.2025.
7. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the present Writ
Petition, the Writ Petitioner has projected highhanded behaviour of the
sympathizers and supporters of the political opponents, thereby resorting to
rigging of votes by impersonation. He had taken this Court through the
various photographs to indicate that some of the persons standing in the
queue of the polling stations do not even belong to the said constituency and
they have stood in the queue for the purpose of rigging the votes by way of
impersonation. He would also submit that threats were hurled to the agents
of the Writ Petitioners who were contesting in the respective ZPTC by-
elections, thereby preventing their agents in attending to their duties during
the course of polling as well as during the course of counting. He would
submit that the sympathizers of the political opponents have threatened the
supporters of the Writ Petitioners who were helping during the time of polling
and counting as election agents in order to gain advantage of rigging and to
prevent the agents from identifying the non-locals for the purpose of
preventing rigging. He would also submit that various Representations given
by the Writ Petitioners to the Election Officer/District Collector dated
6
08.08.2025 (before the date of polling) and on 11.08.2025 (one day before the
date of polling) and also on 12.08.2025 (which is the date of polling) have
been completely ignored by the Official Respondents. He would submit that
all the incriminating material has been supplied to the Official Respondents
seeking proper action but there has not been any response.
8. In response to the preliminary objection on maintainability of these
Writ Petitions raised by Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel
representing the Unofficial Respondents, as indicated above, Sri P. Veera
Reddy, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the Union Territory of
Ladakh and Ors Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and
Another : 2023 SCC OnLine 1140. In the said case, the Respondent therein
namely the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference had applied to the State
Election Commissioner seeking allotment of „plough‟ as a symbol for the
purpose of contesting the General Elections of Ladakh Autonomous Hill
Development Council. It is the case of the Respondent therein that the said
symbol has already been allotted to the same party for participating in the
General Elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. As there was inaction
on the part of the Election Commissioner, the Respondent therein has filed the
Writ Petition. The Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir, vide Interim Order dated 09.08.2023 had directed the Writ Petitioner
to approach the Election Commission for notifying the reserved symbol
„plough‟ already allotted to it with a further direction to the Election
Commission to notify the reserved symbol already allotted to the Writ
Petitioner in terms of Paras 10 and 10(A) of Election Symbols (Reservation
and Allotment) Order, 1968 and to further allow the candidates set-up by the
Writ Petitioner to contest on the reserved election symbol „plough‟.
9. Having been aggrieved by the directions given by the Learned Single
Judge, the Union Territory of Ladakh has filed the Writ Appeal and the same
was dismissed on 14.08.2023. Having been aggrieved by the dismissal, the
Union Territory of Ladakh and the Election Commission of India have
7
approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court was
pleased dismiss the Appeal confirming the Interim Order of the learned Single
Judge.
10. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Para
Nos.16,37,39,43 & 44 of the said Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court to
justify the maintainability of the present Writ Petition. Para Nos.16,37,39,43 &
44 are usefully extracted hereunder:
“16. It requires no reiteration that the powers of this Court and the
High Courts vested under the Constitution cannot be abridged,
excluded or taken away, being part of the Basic Structure of our
Constitution. Reference need only be made to decisions in His
Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of
Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225; Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1; Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of
India, (1980) 3 SCC 625; L Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 and more recently, to Kalpana
Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1 and Rojer
Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited, (2020) 6 SCC 1, all of which
were rendered by a Bench of 5 or more learned Judges. Section
12 of the 1997 Act need not detain us. Insofar as Section 13 of the
1997 Act is concerned, it is by now too well-settled that the
availability of alternative efficacious remedy is no bar to the
exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction, in the light of various
decisions, including but not limited to, State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 595; Madhya Pradesh
State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jahan
Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88; Maharashtra Chess
Association v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 285. Even on the
anvil of Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771, Section 13 of the 1997 Act does not,
and cannot, impede a Constitutional Court from proceeding
further. We do not wish to multiply established authorities on the
point but would add the very recent Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise
and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 95 to the list enumerated above.
37. We would indicate that the restraint, self-imposed, by the
Courts as a general principle, laid out in some detail in some of the
decisions supra, in election matters to the extent that once a
notification is issued and the election process starts, the
Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to
interfere, is not a contentious issue. But where issues crop up,
indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-
8
playing field between candidates and/or political parties with no
justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are
required, nay they are duty-bound, to step in. The reason that the
Courts have usually maintained a hands-off approach is with the
sole salutary objective of ensuring that the elections, which are a
manifestation of the will of the people, are taken to their logical
conclusion, without delay or dilution thereof. In the context of
providing appropriate succour to the aggrieved litigant at the
appropriate time, the learned Single Judge acted rightly. In all
fairness, we must note that the learned ASG, during the course of
arguments, did not contest the power per se of the High Court to
issue the directions it did, except that the same amounted to
denying the Appellants their discretion. As stated hereinbefore, we
are satisfied that in view of the 1968 Order, the Appellants’
discretion was not unbridled, and rather, it was guided by the 1968
Order.
39. This case constrains the Court to take note of the broader
aspect of the lurking danger of authorities concerned using their
powers relating to elections arbitrarily and thereafter, being
complacent, rather over-confident, that the Courts would not
interfere. The misconceived notion being that in the ultimate
eventuate, after elections are over, when such decisions/actions
are challenged, by sheer passage of time, irreversible
consequences would have occurred, and no substantive relief
could be fashioned is just that – misconceived. However, conduct
by authorities as exhibited herein may seriously compel the Court
to have a comprehensive re-think, as to whether the self-imposed
restrictions may need a more liberal interpretation, to ensure that
justice is not only done but also seen to be done, and done in time
to nip in the bud any attempted misadventure. We refrain from
further comment on the Appellants, noting the pendency of the
contempt proceeding.
43. Placing reliance on Shri Sadiq Ali (supra), a 2-Judge Bench
summed up as under, in Edapaddi K Palaniswami v. TTV
Dhinakaran, (2019) 18 SCC 219:
“39. We say so because the efficacy of having a common
symbol for a political group has been underscored
in Sadiq Ali v. Election Commissionof India [Sadiq
Ali v. Election Commission of India, (1972) 4 SCC 664]. In
para 21 of the said judgment, this Court observed thus :
(SCC pp. 674-75)
“21. … It is well known that overwhelming majority of
the electorate are illiterate. It was realised that in view
of the handicap of illiteracy, it might not be possible
for the illiterate voters to cast their votes in favour of
the candidate of their choice unless there was some
pictorial representation on the ballot paper itself
whereby such voters might identify the candidate of
9their choice. Symbols were accordingly brought into
use. Symbols or emblems are not a peculiar feature
of the election law of India. … The object is to ensure
that the process of election is as genuine and fair as
possible and that no elector should suffer from any
handicap in casting his vote in favour of a candidate
of his choice. Although the purpose which accounts
for the origin of symbols was of a limited character,
the symbol of each political party with the passage of
time acquired a great value because the bulk of the
electorate associated the political party at the time of
elections with its symbol. …”
(emphasis supplied)
And again in paras 40 and 41 it is observed thus :
(Sadiq Ali case [Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of
India, (1972) 4 SCC 664], p. 682)
“40. … It would, therefore, follow that Commission
has been clothed with plenary powers by the
abovementioned Rules in the matter of allotment of
symbols. … If the Commission is not to be disabled
from exercising effectively the plenary powers vested
in it in the matter of allotment of symbols and for
issuing directions in connection therewith, it is plainly
essential that the Commission should have the power
to settle a dispute in case claim for the allotment of
the symbol of a political party is made by two rival
claimants. … Para 15 is intended to effectuate and
subserve the main purposes and objects of the
Symbols Order. The paragraph is designed to ensure
that because of a dispute having arisen in a political
party between two or more groups, the entire scheme
of the Symbols Order relating to the allotment of a
symbol reserved for the political party is not set at
naught. … The Commission is an authority created
by the Constitution and according to Article 324, the
superintendence, direction and control of the electoral
rolls for and the conduct of elections to Parliament
and to the Legislature of every State and of elections
to the office of President and Vice-President shall be
vested in the Commission. The fact that the power of
resolving a dispute between two rival groups for
allotment of symbol of a political party has been
vested in such a high authority would raise a
presumption, though rebuttable, and provide a
guarantee, though not absolute but to a considerable
extent, that the power would not be misused but
would be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner.
41. … Article 324 as mentioned above provides that
superintendence, direction and control of elections
shall be vested in Election Commission….”
(emphasis supplied)
40. This decision in Sadiq Ali [Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of
India, (1972) 4 SCC 664] has been followed in Kanhiya Lal
Omar v. R.K. Trivedi [Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi, (1985) 4
10SCC 628] and in para 10 thereof, the Court observed thus : (SCC
pp. 635-36)
“10. It is true that till recently the Constitution did not
expressly refer to the existence of political parties.
But their existence is implicit in the nature of
democratic form of Government which our country
has adopted. The use of a symbol, be it a donkey or
an elephant, does give rise to a unifying effect
amongst the people with a common political and
economic programme and ultimately helps in the
establishment of a Westminster type of democracy
which we have adopted with a Cabinet responsible to
the elected representatives of the people who
constitute the Lower House. The political parties have
to be there if the present system of Government
should succeed and the chasm dividing the political
parties should be so profound that a change of
administration would in fact be a revolution disguised
under a constitutional procedure. It is no doubt a
paradox that while the country as a whole yields to no
other in its corporate sense of unity and continuity,
the working parts of its political system are so
organised on party basis — in other words, “on
systematised differences and unresolved conflicts”.
That is the essence of our system and it facilitates the
setting up of a Government by the majority. Although
till recently the Constitution had not expressly
referred to the existence of political parties, by the
amendments made to it by the Constitution (Fifty-
second Amendment) Act, 1985 there is now a clear
recognition of the political parties by the Constitution.
The Tenth Schedule to the Constitution which is
added by the above Amending Act acknowledges the
existence of political parties and sets out the
circumstances when a member of Parliament or of
the State Legislature would be deemed to have
defected from his political party and would thereby be
disqualified for being a member of the House
concerned. Hence it is difficult to say that the
reference to recognition, registration, etc. of political
parties by the Symbols Order is unauthorised and
against the political system adopted by our country.”
(emphasis supplied)”
(emphasis supplied by us via bolding)
44. For reasons aforesaid, the entire election process, initiated
pursuant to Notification dated 02.08.2023 issued by the
Administration of Union Territory of Ladakh, Election Department,
UT Secretariat, Ladakh, under S.O.53 published vide No.
Secy/Election/2023/290-301 dated 05.08.2023 stands set aside. A
fresh Notification shall be issued within seven days from today for
elections to constitute the 5th Ladakh Autonomous Hill
11Development Council, Kargil. R 1 is declared entitled to the
exclusive allotment of the Plough symbol for candidates proposed
to be put up by it.”
11. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the Judgment
rendered by three Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in People’s
Union for Civil Liberties and Another Vs. Union of India and Another :
2013 (10) SCC 1. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Para
Nos.30, 45, 47, 54 & 55 to contend the importance of Right to Vote that is
conferred on a citizen and the importance of exercising the Right of Voting in a
democracy in Para Nos.45 & 55 of the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in PUCL Case (referred supra). The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has
emphasized that even though the Right to Vote is a statutory right, it is equally
vital, since such Right is the essence of Democracy and without it i.e. the
Right to Vote, the Democracy will fail to thrive. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
was dealing with the issue of introducing an additional feature in the ballot
paper „None of the above‟ (NOTA).
12. The Learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through Sections
224 and 225 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short the
„APPRA, 1994‟) and Rules, 18, 19, 21, 24 & 37 Of the Andhra Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Act (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2006 (for short the „Rules,
2006). He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 43 of the Rules,
2006.
Submissions of Unofficial Respondents
13. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Unofficial Respondents in both the Writ Petitions has taken this Court through
Section 58A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the RPA,
1951). While referring to the said provision, he would submit that at this stage,
the Election Commission cannot entertain the complaints made by the
contesting candidates or any private parties inasmuch as the Election
Commission would act only upon the „Report‟ submitted by the Returning
12
Officer but not otherwise. He would submit that the only remedy left open for
a candidate who is aggrieved of the alleged irregularities said to have
occurred during the polling process is to only approach the appropriate
Tribunal by filing the Election Petition.
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents has also
taken this Court through the contents of the Article 243-O and Clause (a) & (b)
of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel has
placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Boddula Krishnaiah and Another Vs. State Election Commissioner, A.P
and Others : (1996) 3 SCC 416. He has placed reliance on Para Nos.7 to 9
of the said Judgment. He would contend that the „disputed questions of facts‟
cannot be decided in a Writ Petition. He would submit that the photographs
and the video clippings furnished by the Writ Petitioners are only the „disputed
questions of facts‟, which can only be decided upon complete trial and by
Forensic Report in an appropriate Proceeding and such disputed questions of
facts cannot be entertained in a Writ. Para Nos.7 to 9 of the said Judgment
are usefully extracted hereunder:
“7. Article 243-O of the Constitution envisages bar on interference
by courts in election matters. Notwithstanding anything contained
in the Constitution, under sub-clause (b) “no election to any
Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election
petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is
provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a
State”. Thus there is a constitutional bar on interference with the
election process except by an election petition, presented to an
Election Tribunal as may be made by or under law by the
competent legislature and in the manner provided thereunder.
Power of the court granting stay of the election process is no
longer res integra.
8. In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency [(1952) 1 SCC 94 : 1952 SCR 218 : AIR 1952 SC
64] a Constitution Bench of this Court had held that having regard
to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in
democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a
matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as
early as possible according to time-schedule and all controversial
matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be
postponed till after the elections are over so that the election
proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. In
13conformity with the principle, the scheme of the election law is that
no significance should be attached to anything which does not
affect the „election‟; and if any irregularities are committed while it
is in progress and they belong to the category or class which
under the law by which elections are governed, would have the
effect of vitiating the „election‟ and enable the person affected to
call it in question, they should be brought up before a special
tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the
subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in
progress.
9. The same principle was laid down in Lakshmi Charan
Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman [(1985) 4 SCC 689 : 1985 Supp
(1) SCR 493] . In this case where the election process was set in
motion the High Court granted ad interim injunction to the further
proceedings of the election to the State Legislature. A Constitution
Bench of this Court had held thus: (SCC pp. 708-09, para 30)
“The High Court acted within its jurisdiction in entertaining
the writ petition and in issuing a rule nisi upon it, since the
petition questioned the vires of the laws of election. But,
with respect, it was not justified in passing the interim
orders dated February 12 and 19, 1982 and in confirming
those orders by its judgment dated February 25, 1982.
Firstly, the High Court had no material before it to warrant
the passing of those orders. The allegations in the writ
petition are of a vague and general nature, on the basis of
which no relief could be granted. Secondly, though the High
Court did not lack the jurisdiction to entertain the writ
petition and to issue appropriate directions therein, no High
Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution should pass any orders, interim or otherwise,
which has the tendency or effect of postponing an election,
which is reasonably imminent and in relation to which its
writ jurisdiction is invoked. The High Courts must observe a
self-imposed limitation on their power to act under Article
226, by refusing to pass orders or given directions which
will inevitably result in an indefinite postponement of
elections to legislative bodies, which are the very essence
of the democratic foundation and functioning of our
Constitution. That limitation ought to be observed
irrespective of the fact whether the preparation and
publication of electoral rolls are a part of the process of
„election‟ within the meaning of Article 329(b) of the
Constitution.”
“Even assuming, that the preparation and publication of
electoral rolls are not a part of the process of „election‟
within the meaning of Article 329(b), the High Court ought
not to have passed the impugned interim orders, whereby it
not only assumed control over the election process but, as
a result of which, the election to the Legislative Assembly
stood the risk of being postponed indefinitely.”
14
15. Learned Senior Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents has also
placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Division Bench of High Court
of Calcutta in West Bengal State Election Commission Vs. Babli Begum
and Others : 2023 SCC Online Cal 4829. The facts of this case are identical
to the facts involved in the present Writ Petitions, which are reflected in Para
No.3 of the said Judgment. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on
Para 21 of the said Judgment, which is usefully extracted hereunder:
“21. Ratio of a judgment cannot be read like an Euclidean axiom
or the words of a statute. It is to be read in the light of its factual
matrix and not in a vaccum. In the present case the unsuccessful
candidate i.e. the writ petitioner had raised disputes relating to
illegalities in the election process after the result was published.
Nature of his grievances squarely fall within the grounds of
challenge envisaged under Section 93 of the Act of 2003 and is an
election dispute under Section 79 of the said Act. Its adjudication
would involve appreciation of oral, documentary and electronic
evidence and cannot be equated with an ex-facie inaction in
allotting symbol to a political party which had already been allotted
the said symbol in the erstwhile State. On the contrary, efficacious
adjudication of the disputes raised in the present case involve
questions of fact and would require appreciation of evidence
tested on the anvil of cross-examination.”
Submissions by Official Respondents
16. Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General has submitted
that the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court cited by Sri P. Veera Reddy,
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21661 of
2025 i.e., Union Territory of Ladakh and Others Vs. J & K National Conference
and Another (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140) has no relevance inasmuch as the
dispute therein is not relating to alleged irregularities or alleged illegalities
during the election process but the dispute is related to grant of election
symbol. He would also submit that the said dispute did not arise after the
commencement of election process inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner therein
namely Jammu and Kashmir National Conference had approached the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court with regard to the inaction on the part of the State
Election Commission in not considering the request of the Writ Petitioner in
15
granting symbol „plough‟ as election symbol which already stood granted to
the same party. He would further submit that the Writ Petitioner therein had
approached the Court seeking Election Symbol even before the election
notification. He has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon‟ble
Division Bench of this Court in K. Ratna Prabha Vs. Election Commission
of India : 2021 SCC OnLine AP 1012. He placed reliance on Para Nos.5 &
25 of the said Judgment, which are usefully extracted hereunder:
“5. Gist of the allegations in the writ petition is that a large number
of people had been transported into the parliamentary
constituency and were stationed in lodges and Kalyana
Mandapams. They were utilized to indulge in large scale fake
voting which is akin to booth capturing. It is further contended
these proxy voters had been supplied with fake voter identity cards
and when they were confronted by officers of the 1st respondent
and election agents of the petitioner, they became afraid and
hurriedly left the spot without casting their votes. The
administrative machinery of the State acted in a partisan manner
and inspite of FIRs lodged against members of the ruling party,
instead of arresting the fake voters they allowed them to escape
from the spot. There is ample evidence that the ruling party had
forged identity proofs and transported thousands of people to cast
fake votes in 322 polling booths. Representation was made to the
1st respondent – Election Commission to countermand the election
under Section 58A(2)(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951
[for short, „the Act of 1951‟] but the same was turned down without
considering the relevant materials.
25. The other aspect of the matter is that the adjudication of an
election dispute as the present one namely of alleged booth
capturing and fake voting involves various disputed factual issues
requiring reception and assessment of a plethora of oral and
documentary evidence including electronic evidence. In fact, some
materials have been annexed to the writ petition to press the
cause of the writ petitioners to countermand the election.
Admission, appreciation, evaluation and adjudication of such
evidence would best be left to a full-fledged trial on evidence in the
course of an election petition and ought not to be decided by
exchange of affidavits in this writ petition. Efficacy of the procedure
contemplated under the Act of 1951 and the Rules framed
thereunder for trial in an election case persuades us to hold that
such procedure is better suited to decide disputes of such nature
rather than entertain them in a writ petition during the pendency of
an election process. That apart, unlike local body elections, the
High Court itself is the authority to adjudicate election disputes
arising from parliamentary elections. Hence, in our view, relegating
the writ petitioners to the constitutionally approved procedure of
election petition before the High Court is wholly efficacious and
does not in any way prejudice them in canvassing their grievances
with regard to the election process including the decision of the
16Election Commission not to go for a re-poll in the factual matrix of
the case.”
17. Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing
online on behalf of State Election Commission has not only drawn the
attention of this Court to the text of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India
but also the text of Clauses (a) & (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of
India. He would also submit that provision corresponding to Section 58A of
the RPA, 1951 is Section 231 of the APPRA, 1994. He has also drawn the
attention of this Court to Clause (a) & (b) of Sub-section 1 of Section 231 of
APPRA, 1994 and also drawn the attention of Clause (a) & (b) of Sub-section
2 of Section 231 of APPRA, 1994. He would submit that insofar as the
„Report‟ of the Returning Officer is concerned, in the present election, the
Returning Officer has submitted a „Report‟ for conducting re-election in booth
Nos.3 & 14 of Pulivendula ZPTC inasmuch as some malpractices were
involved, and therefore, the State Election Commission has ordered for re-
election insofar as booth Nos.3 & 14 are concerned. He would submit that the
prayer sought in the present Writ Petitions cannot be entertained on the
disputed questions of facts. He would submit that the Right to Vote is only a
statutory right and it is not a fundamental right, and therefore, the present Writ
Petitions cannot be entertained.
18. Learned Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission has
also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 233 of the APPRA, 1994 and
Rule 2 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals In Respect Of
Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parja Parishadas and Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules,
1995 (for short the „Rules, 1995).
Analysis
19. For the purpose of appreciation of above facts, the provisions of the
Constitution, the relevant Statutes and the Rules, Regulations are extracted
hereunder:
17
243O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution :
(a)the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the
allotment of seals to such constituencies made or purporting to be made
under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b)no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an
election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is
provided for by or under any Law made by the legislature of a State.
ii) Section 58-A of Representation of People Act, 1951 :
58A. Adjournment of poll or countermanding of election on the ground
of booth capturing.–
(1)If at any election,–
(a)booth capturing has taken place at a polling station or at a place fixed for
the poll (hereafter in this section referred to as a place) in such a manner that
the result of the poll at that polling station or place cannot be ascertained; or
(b)booth capturing takes place in any place for counting of votes in such a
manner that the result of the counting at that place cannot be ascertained, the
returning officer shall forthwith report the matter to the Election Commission.
(2)The Election Commission shall, on the receipt of a report from the
returning officer under sub-section (1) and after taking all material
circumstances into account, either,–
(a)declare that the poll at that polling station or place be void, appoint a day,
and fix the hours, for taking fresh poll at that polling station or place and notify
the date so appointed and hours so fixed in such manner as it may deem fit;
or
(b)if satisfied that in view of the large number of polling stations or places
involved in booth capturing the result of the election is likely to be affected, or
that booth capturing had affected counting of votes in such a manner as to
affect that result of the election, countermand the election in that
constituency. Explanation.–In this section, “booth capturing” shall have the
same meaning as in section 135A.
iii) Sections 231 & 233 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act,
1994:
231. Adjournment of poll or countermanding of election on the ground
of booth capturing – (1) If at any election,
(a) booth capturing has taken place at a polling station or in such number
of polling stations as is likely to affect the result of such election or
18that the result of the poll at that polling station cannot be ascertained;
or
(b) booth capturing takes place in any place for counting of votes in such
manner that the result of the counting at that place cannot be
ascertained, the returning officer shall forthwith report the matter to
the *[Andhra Pradesh Election Commissioner for Local Bodies].
(2) The *[Andhra Pradesh Election Commissioner for Local Bodies] shall on
the receipt of a report from the returning officer under sub-section (1) and
after taking all material circumstances into account, either,
(a) declare that the poll at that polling station be void, appoint a day, and
fix the hours, for taking fresh poll at that polling station and notify the
date so appointed and hours so fixed in such manner as he may
deem fit, or
(b) if satisfied that in view of the large number of polling stations involved
in booth capturing the result of the election is likely to be affected or
that booth capturing had affected counting of votes in such manner as
to effect the result of the election, countermand the election in that
constituency.
Explanation: In this section “booth capturing” shall have the same meaning
as in section 224.
233. Election petitions – No election held under this Act shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in
accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf.
iv) Rule 2 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals
In Respect Of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parja Parishadas
and Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules, 1995
“2. (1) Save as otherwise provided no election held under the Act, whether of
a member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President and
Vice-President of Mandal Praja Parishad and Member of Mandal Praja
Parishad Territorial Constituencies and Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Zilla
Praja Parishad and Member of Zilla Praja Parishad and Member of Zilla
Parishad Territorial Constituency thereof, shall be called in question except by
an election petition presented in accordance with these Rules to the Election
Tribunal as defined in sub-rule(2) by any candidate or elector against the
candidate who has been declared to have been duly elected (hereinafter
called the returned candidate) or if there are two or more returned candidates
against all or any such candidates.
(2) The Election Tribunal shall be, –
(i) except in cases following under clause (ii),
a) the District Munsiff, if there is more than one District Munsiff, the Principal
District Munsiff, having Territorial Jurisdiction over the place in which the
19
office of Gram Panchayat is located, in respect of the election of
members, Sarpanchas and Upa-Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayat.
b) the Subordinate Judge or if there is more than one Subordinate Judge at
the Head Quarters, having Territorial Jurisdiction over the place in which
the office of Mandal Praja Parishad or Zilla Praja Parishad as the case
may be, is located, in respect of the election disputes and matters
pertaining to the election of President, Vice-President and members of
Mandal Praja Parishad Territorial Constituencies and Chairman, Vice-
Chairman and Members of Zilla Praja Parishad Territorial Constituencies.
Explanation:- For purposes of these Rules, the expressions “Subordinate
Judge” and “District Munsiff shall in relation to the Scheduled Areas mean the
Agency Divisional Officer.
(ii) Where the Government so directs, whether in respect of Gram Panchayats
generally or in respect of any class of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja
Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads such officer or officers of the Government
as may be designated by the Government in this behalf by name or by virtue
of Office;
Provided that an election petition may, on application, be transferred:
a) If presented to a Subordinate Judge or the District Munsiff, as the case
may be, under clause (i) by the District Judge concerned to another
Subordinate Judge or Munsiff Magistrate as the case may be within his
jurisdiction;
b) If presented to an officer of the Government under clause (ii) by the
Government to another officer of the Government.
Where an election petition is so transferred, the authority to which it is
transferred shall be deemed to be the Election Tribunal.
(3) An election Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under these Rules shall be
deemed to exercise such jurisdiction as a person designate and not in his
capacity as a Judge or other Officer of the Government, as the case may be”.
Disputed Questions of Facts:
20. The Writ Petitioners herein have placed on record various
photographs and also the pen drives in support of their contentions that
several people who are not the residents of territorial constituency have
participated in the voting, which amounts to rigging. These are however,
issues relating to facts which can be decided only by the competent Election
Tribunal by adducing oral and documentary evidence on one hand and also
on the strength of the Forensic Report on the other hand. It is clarified that
20this Court is not venturing into making any comments on merits inasmuch as
the comments may have a binding effect on the Election Tribunal and may
also have adverse bearing on the merits of the case of either of the parties.
This apart, the Writ Court would not venture to undertake an exercise that is
reserved purely for the enquiry by the Election Tribunal in terms of Section
233 of APPRA, 1994 read with Rule 2 of Rules, 1995.
Statutory Bar
21. Statue that is akin to Section 58A of the RPA, 1951 is incorporated
under Section 231 of APPRA, 1994. Also, Section 233 of the APPRA, 1994
mandates, through a non-obstante clause, that no election held under the
APPRA Act, 1994 Act shall be called in question except by an Election
Petition presented to such authority and in accordance with such Rules as
may be made in this behalf. As indicated earlier that under Rule 2 of the
Rules, 1995, sub-clause (b) requires the aggrieved party to approach the
Subordinate Judge for filing an Election Petition in respect of elections relating
to Z.P.P. Therefore, the provisions referred to above would clearly indicate
that the Writ Courts would be loath in entertaining the disputes that arise
during the election process inasmuch as the said area is reserved for the
Election Tribunal.
22. Provisions of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of
the Statute that would fall for consideration in the present case have already
been referred hereinabove. Article 243 and 243-A to 243-O would deal with
various aspects of Rural India namely the Gram Sabhas and local
panchayats. Clause (b) of Article 243-O stipulates that “no election to any
Panchayat shall be called in question except by an „election petition‟
presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under
any law made by the Legislature of a State”. The elections to Panchayats of
Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads in the State of Andhra
Pradesh are governed by the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
21
23. In this view of the matter, the Judgments relied on by the Sri P.
Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel in the „plough‟ symbol case (2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1140) and PUCL Case [(2013) 10 SCC 1], referred supra, would
have no relevance to the facts involved in the present Writ Petitions.
24. Similarly, the reliance placed by Sri S. Sri Ram, learned Senior
Counsel on Paras 14 to 17, 19 to 22 and 36 to 39 in the case of Mohinder
Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
and Others : (1978) 1 SCC 405 during his rejoinder would also not support
the case of the Writ Petitioners herein. He has further submitted that there is
inaction on the part of State Election Commission in taking appropriate action
on the alleged irregularities projected by the Writ Petitioners. He would further
submit that the conduct of the State Election Commission tantamounts to
abdication of its statutory functions.
25. On the contrary, the reliance placed by Sri B. Adinarayana Rao,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Unofficial Respondents, which are
referred to above would squarely apply to the facts of the present cases,
inasmuch as the Writ Court would not entertain Writ Petitions to consider the
disputed questions of facts. This apart, this Court is also in agreement with
the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel with regard to the the
constitutional and statutory mandate which would clearly indicate that the
nature of disputes raised by the Writ Petitioners herein can only be
adjudicated by the Election Tribunal, when the aggrieved party files an
Election Petition.
26. This Court is in agreement with the submissions of Sri S. Vivek
Chandrasekhar representing the State Election Commission (SEC) that it had
ordered for a re-poll in respect of booth nos.3 and 14 in Pulivendula ZPTC
basing on the „Report‟ submitted by the Election Officer and insofar as the
disputes raised by the Writ Petitioners are concerned, they are required to
approach the designated Election Tribunal but not a Writ Court inasmuch as
there is a Constitutional and Statutory bar for entertaining a Writ Petition.
22
27. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that there is no
merit in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Writ Petitioners are, however, granted liberty to approach the Election Tribunal
in respect of the issues involved in the present Writ Petitions, if so advised. No
Order as to Costs.
28. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________
GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 14.08.2025
Note: LR Copy to be marked.
JKS
23
233
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NOs: 21648 & 21661 of 2025
14.08.2025
Note: LR Copy to be marked.
JKS
[ad_2]
Source link