Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
T.Venkateswara Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 12-18-57
ELECTION - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - RATE PAYERS - INTEREST IN THE MATTER - ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - WRIT OF OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER - ELECTION PROGRAMME - MACHINERY FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS - ELECTORAL ROLLS - QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS - OBJECTIONS - OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE OBJECTIONS - AMENDMENTS - NOTIFICATION - SCRUTINY OF NOMINATION PAPERS - CLERICAL OR PRINTING ERRORS - SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS - ELECTION AUTHORITY - ELECTION OFFICER - LEGISLATIVE ELECTORAL ROLL - MANNER OF PUBLISHING ELECTORAL ROLLS - CORRECTION OF MISTAKES - SUBSTANTIAL OBJECTIONS - RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS OF MUNICIPAL COUNCILLORS - INTERPRETATION OF ENTRY IN ELECTORAL ROLL - IDENTITY OF CANDIDATE - REVISION OF ELECTORAL ROLLS - ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS TO BE ENROLLED AND OBJECTIONS TO ENROLMENT - ESSENCE OF ELECTIONS - PROPER ELECTORAL ROLLS - SCRUTINY - OPPORTUNITY TO PARTIES CONCERNED - VALIDITY OF ELECTIONS - REDISTRIBUTION OF WARDS - CONSULTATION OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - FUNCTIONS OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - DUTY TO GIVE ADVICE - SPECIAL OFFICER - EXERCISE OF POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF COUNCIL AND CHAIRMAN - MODE OF CONSULTATION - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE - DEFECTS IN ELECTORAL ROLL - TITLE-PAGE - ENUMERATION OF HOUSE-NUMBERS - BOUNDARIES OF WARDS - ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS REDISTRIBUTION OF WARDS - MALA FIDE EXERCISE OF POWER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the holding of elections on the basis of re-distributed wards effected in November, 1957 and for conducting the elections on the basis of the earlier re-distribution of wards effected in May, 1956. The main contention of the petitioners was that the re-distribution of wards was done arbitrarily and capriciously by the Government just before the elections with a view to shift the voting strength in favour of the nominees.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the re-distribution of wards was not done arbitrarily and capriciously by the Government and that the Government acted bona fide in exercising the power under section 43 of the Act. The Court also held that the electoral rolls were prepared in substantial compliance with the instructions and that the defects found in the electoral roll were not likely to cause any confusion during elections.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable? 2. Whether the election programme is vitiated by the absence of any machinery for hearing objections and for deciding them in respect of voters included in or excluded from the electoral rolls? 3. Whether the Government has power to redistribute the wards before the date of the ordinary elections to the Council? 4. Whether the previous consultation of the Municipal Council by the State is a condition precedent for the exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 43 of the Act? 5. Whether the Commissioner takes the place of the council and, if he is consulted, the condition laid down in section 43 of the Act is complied with? 6. Whether the electoral rolls were prepared in the form prescribed by G. O. No. 904, dated 5th May, 1952? 7. Whether the division of the wards was effected by the Government arbitrarily and capriciously?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The writ petitions are maintainable as the petitioners are rate-payers and have a specific legal interest in the matter. 2. The election programme is not vitiated by the absence of any machinery for hearing objections and for deciding them in respect of voters included in or excluded from the electoral rolls as the Act prescribes a simplified procedure for preparing and publishing electoral rolls for a Municipality and the Government has issued an order authorising an election officer to correct clerical mistakes and accidental omissions in the electoral roll. 3. The Government has power to redistribute the wards before the date of the ordinary elections to the Council as section 43 of the Act confers a discretion on the Government to postpone the date of the notification taking effect to the next ordinary elections. 4. The previous consultation of the Municipal Council by the State is a condition precedent for the exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 43 of the Act as the Legislature could not have visualised an attitude of non-co-operation on the part of a statutory body in enacting a provision. 5. The Commissioner takes the place of the council and, if he is consulted, the condition laid down in section 43 of the Act is complied with as the Government Order, dated 22nd June, 1956, appointed the Commissioner as Special Officer to exercise the powers, discharge the duties and perform the functions of the council and its chairman. 6. The electoral rolls were prepared in substantial compliance with the instructions and the defects found in the electoral roll were not likely to cause any confusion during elections. 7. The division of the wards was not effected by the Government arbitrarily and capriciously as the Government acted bona fide in exercising the power under section 43 of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by these are three writ petitions arising out of the same election process in different stages in respect of the elections to the Vijayawada Municipality. Vijayawada is one of the important towns in the State of Andhra Pradesh. After the Indian Constitution came into force, the wards of that Municipality were re-distributed to bring them in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and elections were held in 1952 when Vijayawada was in the Madras State. On 1st october, 1953, the Andhra State was inaugurated and, in the ordinary course, elections should have been held to the Municipal Council in 1955. But the government extended its life along with that of other Municipal Councils in the State till july, 1956. Thereafter, on 5th May, 1956, after following the prescribed formalities, the Government effected a re-distribution of the wards in the Vijayawada Municipality for the purpose of holding the next elections. On 22nd June, 1956, for reasons which we need not particularise, the Vijayawada Municipal Council was superseded for a period of one year. The period of supersession was extended for another six months and will expire by 21st December, 1957. In the order extending the period of supersession, it was specifically mentioned that the new elections would be held and the reconstituted Council would come into being on 21st December, 1957. Indeed, the Government directed the Inspector-General of Local Administration to conduct the elections and to reconstitute the Council by that date and steps were teing taken towards that end. But, on 5th November, 1957, the Government issued another notification re-distributing once again the wards in the Vijayawada municipality. On 12th November, 1957, new electoral rolls on the basis of the re-distribution of the wards were published. On 13th November, 1957, a notification was issued by the Government fixing the election programme, whereunder 21st, 22nd and 23rd November, were the dates fixed for receiving nominations, 25th November for scrutiny, 16th December for polling and 17th December for counting. The authorities concerned are proceeding to conduct the elections in accordance with the aforesaid programme.
( 2 ) W. P. No. 864 of 1957 is filed by T. Venkateswara Rao, who claims to be a rate-payer in the Vijayawada Municipality and a resident of Ward No. 28 as constituted in the re-distribution of the wards effected on 5th May, 1956. He was a councillor till the date of the supersession of the Municipality on 22nd June, 1956. He is also a member of the Secretariat of the Communist Party, Vijayawada, which is setting up candidates for election in the several wards. The petition was filed on 4th November, 1957, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direct the respondents to hold the elections to the Vijayawada Municipality on the basis of the wards fixed under G. O. Ms. No. 674 L. A. , dated 5th May, 1956. On nth November, 1957, the said Venkateswara Rao filed another writ petition, W. P. No. 896 of 1957, for issuing a writ of certlorari to quash G. O. Ms. No, 1976 L. A. , dated 5th November, 1957, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 6th November, 1957, re-distributing the wards on the eve of the new elections. T. V. P. Ramachandra Rao and Dr. T. V. S. Chalapathi Rao filed W. P. No. 1015 of 1957 for issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order to quash the notification issued by the Government, dated 5th November, 1957 and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 6th November, 1957, the proceedings relating to the preparation and publication of the electoral rolls and the consequential election proceedings on the basis of such wards and rolls.
( 3 ) THE three writs were filed in respect of the three stages of the election process questioning the holding of the elections on the basis of the re-distributed wards effected in November, 1957 and for conducting the ele
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
