Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, K.C.BHANU
Pandranki Parvathi - Appellant
Versus
Akula Gangaraju - Respondent
Decided On : 01-28-04
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 –Sections 153, 200 –Constitution of India –Article 243-K –Issue on copy of Whip – learned Senior counsel, contended that the there is no material available on record that a copy of the Whip was served on the appellants as is required under the rules read with the instructions issued by the election Commission –The telegrams alleged to have been sent by the Whip have not been received by the appellants –It was further submitted that the very admission made by the first respondent-writ petitioner that an attempt was made to serve a copy of the whip issued upon the appellants after the meeting was assembled itself suggests that the copy of the Whip has not been served upon the appellants before the actual commencement of the meeting for the purpose of electing the President of the mandal Parishad –The service of a copy of the Whip, according to the learned Senior counsel, is a mandatory requirement in law a member could be disqualified under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder –Held, In the instant case, Court has also noticed that there is no evidence of the first respondent-writ petitioner serving the party whip on the appellants and making a copy thereof available to the Presiding Officer one hour before the commencement of the meeting – It is unnecessary to go into the distinction between express notice and implied notice since we are not agreeing with the contention that the constructive notice, which the appellants had, itself would be enough to attract disqualification – In conclusion, court find that the orders passed by the Presiding Officer refusing to disqualify the appellants herein do not suffer from any legal infirmities – For the foregoing reasons, Court set aside the order of the learned single Judge and accordingly uphold the order passed by the Presiding Officer refusing to disqualify the appellants herein as Members –Writ Appeals allowed
( 1 ) THESE writ appeals and writ petition are being disposed of by a common Judgment since the issue involved in one and the same in all these matters. W. A. Nos. 1497 and 1502 of 2003:
( 2 ) THESE two writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14-8-2003 made in W. P. No. 23288 of 2001. They raise questions relating to the disqualification of some of the members of mandal Parishad, Yeleswaram Mandal (appellants herein) unaer Section 153 of the andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act 13 of 1994) (for short the Act) read with the Andhra Pradesh conduct of Election of member (Co-opted) and President/vice-president of Mandal Parishad and Member (Co-opted) and Chairman/vice-Chairman of zilla Parishad Rules, 1994 (for short the rules ).
( 3 ) THE elections for Mandal Parishad, yeleswaram Mandal of East Godavari district were held on 14-7-2001. In all, 19 members were elected from different Mandal parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTCs ). After the elections, the strength of the members of the political parties was as under:1. Congress (I) Party 12 Members 2. Telugu Desam Party 7 Members
( 4 ) A special meeting to elect the president and Vice-President of the Mandal parishad, Yeleswaram Mandal was scheduled to be held on 22-7-2001 at 1-00 P. M.
( 5 ) THE first respondent-writ petitioner having been named as Whip by the president of the District Congress committee, East Godavari District intimated the same to the Presiding Officer as is required under the Rules. The admitted case of the first respondent-writ petitioner is that he tried to serve a copy of the Whip on the appellants herein personally in the fore-noon on 21-7-2001 and when they refused to receive the same, a telegram was issued to them and as an abundant caution the presiding Officer was also informed about the issuance of Whip directing all the members of the Congress Party to vote in favour of the candidate set up on behalf of the said party. As a measure of further caution, the first respondent-writ petitioner alleged to have visited the houses of the appellants in the evening on 21-7-2001 and pasted a copy of the Whip issued on the main door-walls of houses of appellants in the presence of elders of the village. It is admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that "with the permission of the first respondent I tried to serve copies of the whip just before the commencement of meeting for electing office bearers at 1-00 PM. However, respondent 2 to 5 refused to receive the same and the same was witnessed by the 1st respondent, who I also understand, has recorded in the minutes book. Thereafter he permitted me to read out the contents of the whip over public address system so as to enable all the members who are assembled to know about the issuance and contents of the whip. I read out the whip and asked all the members of the Congress Party to vote for the official party nominee the 2nd petitioner herein for the President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . However, in spite of having knowledge of issuance of the whip respondents 2 to 5 did not vote for the congress Party candidate and in fact respondent No. 2 herein contested for the presidentship of Yeleswaram Mandal Praja parishad as an independent candidate and got herself elected with the support of the members elected on behalf of Telugu desam Party. "
( 6 ) THE first respondent-writ petitioner submitted a complaint on the same day before the Presiding Officer. The Presiding officer acting on the said complaint, issued proceedings dated 25-7-2001 holding that the appellants herein have ceased to be the members of the Mandal Parishad for violating the Whip issued by the first respondent-writ petitioner.
( 7 ) THE appellants herein filed w. P. Nos. 15567,15568,15569 and 15645 of 2001 in this Court challenging the validity of the said orders of the Presiding Officer dated 25-7-2001. A learned single Judge of this court allowed the said w
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
