N. Sekhar vs Government of A. P. , rep. by its Principal Secretary (P. R. &R. D. )

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(AP) 655

2006 (5) ALT 98
P.S. NARAYANA, J.
W.P. No. 10965 of 2006 and Batch
Decided on 20-6-2006.
N. Sekhar and others
vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary (P.R.&R.D.) and others
Advocate Appeared
M/s. S. Ramachander Rao, Senior Counsel, K.R. Prabahakar, Naresh Byrapaneni, M. Prabhakar Rao, 1. Rajendra Prasad, M.V. Durga Prasad, P. Nagendra Reddy, D.R. Krishnam Rajesh, Smt. K. Aruna, V. Srinivas, Ms. Devineni Radha Rani, Srinivas Dammalapati, Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, Satyanarayana Nimmagadda, K. Ravinder and C. Sai Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioners.
Advocate General and G. P. for Panchayat Raj - Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, Nuti Ramamohan Rao, K.G.K. Prasad, Brahma Reddy and Subba Reddy, Counsel for the Respondents.

Headnote:
AP. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 – Sections 11, 12, 21, 22, 151, 179, 201, 268 (1) (2) – APRP Act – Sections 2(11), 2(30), 32 – Delhi laws Act, 1912 – Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 – Section 22 , 23 – Delimitation Commission Act – Sections 8 and 9 – Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – Sections 3, 11-F – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21, 136, 240, 240(T), 243-K, 243P(g), 323(A)(2)(d), 329(b) – Panchayat Raj (Preparation and Publication of Electoral Rolls) Rules,2000 – Rule 6 – Registration of Electoral Rules 1960 – Rules 13(2), 19 and 26 – Statutory Rules and Orders of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 – Electoral Dispute – Deletion of Voter Names –Writ petition was filed praying for relief of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents in deleting names of valid voters• and refusing to include the eligible voters while refusing to exclude the ineligible voters from the voters list of Gram Panchayat prepared by authorities and not passing any orders on the appeals preferred by the affected parties by the concerned authorities as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory thereby violative and consequentially direct the respondents to include the eligible voters and exclude the ineligible voters from the voters list of Gram Panchayat before issuing the election notification and pass such other suitable orders – Held, Writ of Mandamus as prayed for is issued quashing the consequential notification which is long subsequent to filing of the Writ Petitions and just one day after the passing of the order by the Division Bench, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and being violative – Court also declares that all electoral lists drawn in this regard are not in accordance with provisions of Constitution, statutory provisions, or the subordinate Legislations inasmuch as they suffer from the Constitutional bankruptcy, Legislative bankruptcy and subordinate legislative bankruptcy as well and further direct the respondents to prepare fresh electoral lists in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and also provisions of the AP. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, if need be, by filling the requisite subordinate legislation as well – Writ Petition disposed

ORDER INTRODUCTION:

Indian democracy despite the constitutional measures, the other legislative measures and the reforms, suffers from severCj.1 ·ills. The Apex Court on several occasions had cautioned the constitutional functionaries and other wings in this regard. It is needless to say that these instances being too numerous, this court is not inclined to elaborate the same. Be that as it may, the democratic features as basic features had been well emphasized in A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras1, Keshavananda Bharathi Sripadagalvaru v. State of Keralci, and also in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms3, In Union of India v. Naveen Jindal the Apex Court observed that the beauty of the Indian Constitution is that the entire structure of the country is based thereupon. It is the very pillar upon which the democracy of India stands. In Dattatreya and others v. Mahaveer and others" it was observed that fair play is the basic principle seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Thiagarajan and others v. Sri Venugopalswamy B. Koil and others5 it was observed that it is the obligation of the courts of law to further clear intendment of the legislation and not to frustrate it by excluding the same. These batch of writ petitions were filed prior to the Election Notification dated 10-06-2006 questioning the validity of the voters list on different grounds, statutory like the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as the Act), the G.O.Ms. No. 254, the supersession thereof and also the several constitutional provisions governing the field in this regard and further pointing out the constitutional or the statutory vacuum created, serious gap even in subordinate Legislation, in relation to the drawing up of the voters list and how the gross root democracy is ultimately affected by virtue of the same.

SHORT BACKGROUND OF THESE LITIGATIONS:

2. As already referred to supra, these writ petitions were filed prior to the issuance of election notification aforesaid but however, these are being disposed of subsequent to the issuance of the notification. At the out set it may be stated that several other writ petitions inclusive of these writ petitions came up before the learned single judge and in the said batch on 01-06-2006 the learned single Judge had made the following order while posting the writ petitions for admission on 19-06-2006.

"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the following directions are given:

I. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj shall undertake an exhaustive review on the reorganization of MPTCs in various Mandals in the State and take necessary steps to ensure that:

(a) Whether the number of MPTCs in a Mandal remains unaltered, the existing set up is not disturbed.

(b) Whether the number of MPTCs in a Mandal has increased on account of rise in population, the reorganization of the MPTCs must be such that the MPTCs where the highest growth of population has been recorded are reorganized; and the others are not touched.

(c) No village which is not continuous to other villages in an MPTC are allotted or attached to it, i.e. Territorial contiguity must be ensured; and

(d) Perfect balance· is mentioned as regards the number of villages in each MPTC in the Mandal.

If such exercise warrants any rearrangement or reorganization of MPTCs., it shall be open to the Commissioner to issue necessary directions before the election notification is issued. The complaints and representations received in this regard shall be taken into account. Necessary instructions shall also be issued to the District Collectors.

The State Election Commissioner shall issue necessary directions to the District Collectors as well as the Electoral Registration Officers in the State,

(a) to ensure that the sanctity of the voters list published in February,2006 is maintained in the matter of utilizing the same for the Panchayat Raj Elections:

(b) to ascertain whether the deletion or addition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

gpt-4