Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
P. Ramachandra Reddy S/o P. Lakshmu Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Election Commission Rep. by its Secretary and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 58 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2021
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections of Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats, Members of Mandal Praja Parishads and Members of Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules, 2006 - Rule 16 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 243K - Election - Learned senior counsel submits that he may be permitted to strike off name of respondent No- 2 who is State Election Commissioner from array of parties in this appeal and he will also take appropriate steps before learned single Judge for striking off name of respondent No- 2 from array of parties in writ petition- He submits that in view of prayer made for striking off name of respondent No- 2 appellant-writ petitioner will not press allegations made against him in writ petition - learned senior counsel as well as learned Advocate General do not have any objection in permitting appellant to strike off name of respondent No- 2 from array of parties
Finding of court: learned senior counsel for appellant had laid much stress on Rule 16 of Rules to contend that directions contained in letter by Election Commissioner were contrary to law we refrain from examining that aspect of matter as issue has not really fallen for consideration in instant proceeding - In writ petition at Paragraph 8 writ petitioner had stated that his statements had been distorted by second respondent - However writ petitioner had not elaborated as to how same were distorted - As writ petition is pending we are of considered opinion that it will not be just and proper for us to record any conclusive determination on issue relating to restraint imposed upon appellant-writ petitioner to have access to media as contained in order - A perusal of order goes to show that writ petitioner was prevented to have access to media for making possible inciteful utterances that would have adverse impact on ongoing elections to local bodies as well as on general law and order situation
Result: Writ Appeal stands disposed of
JUDGMENT :
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.
1. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 07.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in I.A. No. 2 of 2021 in W.P. No. 3009 of 2021.
2. Heard Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 (State Election Commission) and Mr. S. Sriram, learned Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
3. Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, submits that he may be permitted to strike off the name of respondent No. 2, who is the State Election Commissioner, from the array of parties in this appeal and he will also take appropriate steps before the learned single Judge for striking off the name of respondent No. 2 from the array of parties in the writ petition. He submits that in view of the prayer made for striking off the name of respondent No. 2, the appellant-writ petitioner will not press the allegations made against him in the writ petition.
4. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel, as well as Mr. S. Sriram, learned Advocate General, do not have any objection in permitting the appellant to strike off the name of respondent No. 2 from the array of parties.
5. Having regard to the submissions made above, we are of the considered opinion that the name of respondent No. 2 be struck off from the array of parties in this appeal. Registry will take appropriate steps accordingly.
6. The writ petition was filed by the Minster for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Mines and Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in proceedings No. 287/SEC-B2/2021 and consequential letter bearing D.O.Lr. No. 513/SEC-B2 dated 06.02.2021 addressed to the fourth respondent, i.e. the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh.
7. The order dated 06.02.2021 came to be passed in the wake of a press conference held by the appellant-writ petitioner on 05.02.2021 at Tirupati.
8. Presently, the Ordinary Elections to the Panchayats in the State of Andhra Pradesh are being held in four phases and the aforesaid order dated 06.02.2021 was issued by the State Election Commission, as indicated therein, by invoking its power under Article 243K of the Constitution of India, in order to ensure free and fair election. The consequential order dated 06.02.2021 is a letter issued to the Director General of Police, communicating that the appellant can under no circumstances be included in the welcoming line-up when the Hon’ble President of India visits Madanapalli of Chittoor District on 07.02.2021.
9. In the order dated 06.02.2021, the statements alleged to have been made by the appellant-writ petitioner in the press conference held on 05.02.2021 are noted as follows:
“The Collectors and Returning Officers in the State are warned not to obey the instructions of the madcap Election Commissioner. If they follow the Commission’s instructions (preventing forced unanimous elections), action will be taken against them and they will be blacklisted. This Commissioner will be there till March, 2021 end but our Government will continue beyond and we will take you to task. The Returning Officers are to disregard the Commissioner’s directions and declare all unanimous elections. The Commissioner is doing these things to gain MP/MLC seat from Telugu Desam Party. The people of the State are behind us. Unanimous elections shall continue.”
10. At Paragraph 7 of the order, it was observed as follows:
“The Commission has deliberated concerns both on the issues of law as well as issues of facts and there is found to be unmistakable and deliberate breach, and an attempt to encourage violation of rule of law. The Commission has come to a conclusion that unless corrective steps are taken immediately to remedy the situation arising as a consequence out of the utterance
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
