IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
The State Election Commission - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 24 of 2021
Decided On : 21-01-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 243-E(3)(a), 14 and 21 - Seeking to justify holding of elections to Gram Panchayats - Whether there will be any prejudice or legal impediment to appellant if we post appeal on to be taken up before concerned bench as per roster - He sought to project few points submitting that appellant will be prejudiced if matter is not heard today - Whether it is possible or expedient to hold elections rests with Election Commission - Whether elections are to be put on hold and democratic processes suspended till vaccination programme attains stated goals perhaps somewhere towards end -
Finding of the court : Elections to Panchayats, Municipalities and even Legislative Assembly elections had been conducted in height of COVID-19 pandemic, is not in dispute - Election Commission of State of Rajasthan to notify election programme in respect of subject Municipal Corporations within one week - Entire Government machinery will be working full time in vaccinating and as such, overlapping of election work and vaccination work cannot be ruled out and State machinery will be put to enormous strain to perform twin roles at same time - It is only when Municipality is dissolved for any other reason and remainder of period for which dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any elections for constituting Municipality for such period –
Result :Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Arup Kumar Goswami, J.
1. This writ appeal is presented under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an interim order dated 11.01.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1158 of 2021.
2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the following prayer was made:
3. A detailed order dated 08.01.2021, impugned in the writ petition, was passed by the State Election Commissioner seeking to justify holding of elections to the Gram Panchayats in view of the request made by the State Government for postponement of the elections. A schedule for holding ordinary elections to the Gram Panchayats in four phases was also published in terms of which Election Notification is to be issued for Phase-I on 23.01.2021, for phase-II on 27.01.2021, for Phase-III on 31.01.2021 and for Phase-IV on 04.02.2021. Conduct of poll, wherever necessary, was fixed on 05.02.2021, 09.02.2021, 13.02.2021 and 17.02.2021, for Phases I, II, III and IV, respectively. It is stated at the bar that elections to the Gram Panchayats are not contested on party basis.
4. At the very outset, it will be appropriate to extract the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the learned single Judge, which is as follows:
Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st and 2nd respondents and Sri N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India takes notice for the 3rd and 4th respondents.
Waives further notice and seeks time to file counters.
Heard Sri Sriram, learned Advocate General for the petitioner and Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Standing Counsel and Sri N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.
Having carefully considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the counsel, perused the record, this court prima facie came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent issued the impugned order without preceded by any pragmatic decision, based on the decisional consultation with the state government as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 437 of 2020 and orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 22900 of 2020. The 1st respondent failed to consider the inputs supplied by the 1st respondent-government objectively, in its proper perspective. This court, in its considered opinion found that the impugned decision of the 1st respondent is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The 1st respondent decision to conduct elections certainly hampers and create hindrance to mammoth vaccination programme taken up by the Union of India and has to be implemented by the State Government to contain the Covid-19 and its mutation and the interest of public health, the impugned orders are hereby suspended.
Post on 15.02.2021."
5. The aforesaid writ petition was taken up for consideration by the Vacation Court on 11.01.2021. It is pertinent to mention that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was having Sank
Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. vs. Union of India
A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and others v. Union of India and others
Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Limited and others v. Chunilal Nanda and others
Mr. Mohammed Azharuddin v. Dr. G. Vivekananda and others
Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others
Election Commission of India Through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar and others
Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others
Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.