Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Kiranmayee Mandava, Nyapathy Vijay, JJ.
Ysr Congress Party & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Election Commission of India Represented By Its Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No: 12167 of 2024
Decided On : 01-06-2024
Election Dispute - Proceedings of 1st respondent - Rules, 1961, R.P. Act, 1951 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 54A, Section 28 of R.P. Act, 1950, Section 169 of R.P. Act, 1951, Section 100(1)(d)(iii)&(iv) of R.P. Act, 1951 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 54A of the Rules, 1961, Section 28 of R.P. Act, 1950, Section 169 of R.P. Act, 1951, and Section 100(1)(d)(iii)&(iv) of R.P. Act, 1951. The court analyzed the legal position regarding the rejection of ballot papers, the authority to issue guidelines, and the jurisdiction for election disputes, influencing its decision to dispose of the Writ Petition and leaving it open for the petitioners to pursue remedies in a properly constituted election petition.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petition challenged the proceedings of the 1st respondent issued in connection with the counting of postal ballot of 'voters on election duty'. The petitioners sought a declaration that the proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, and violative of various constitutional and statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute raised in the Writ Petition fell within the domain of Chapter II of R.P. Act, 1951, and the petitioners should challenge the impugned proceedings in a properly constituted election petition. The court disposed of the Writ Petition, leaving it open for the petitioners to pursue remedies in a properly constituted election petition.
Issues: The issues were whether the proceedings of the 1st respondent were in derogation of the statutory provisions of the Rules, 1961, and whether the dispute raised in the Writ Petition would amount to an election dispute within the realm of Chapter II of the R.P Act, 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute raised in the Writ Petition fell under the domain of Chapter II of R.P. Act, 1951, and the petitioners should challenge the impugned proceedings in a properly constituted election petition.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioners to pursue remedies in a properly constituted election petition. No costs were awarded.
ORDER
Kiranmayee Mandava, J. - The proceedings under challenge in the present Writ Petition are the proceedings of the 1st respondent issued in connection with the counting of postal ballot of 'voters on election duty'.
2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
'issue Writ, order or direction; more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/2024 dated 25.05.2024 and Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/A2/2024 dated 27.05.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 herein as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, vague, ultra vires, violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 326 of the Constitution of India, violative of the preamble of the Constitution of India, violative of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, violative of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and violative of Lr. No.464/Counting Process/2023-EPS dated 19.07.2023 that is issued by the Election Commission of India, and without jurisdiction; and consequently, set aside Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/2024 dated 25.05.2024 and Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/A2/2024 dated 27.05.2024 that are passed by the Respondent No.2 herein; and pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'
3. The petitioner subsequently filed IA seeking amendment of the prayer. The said IA was allowed vide order dated 30.05.2024. The amended prayer reads as under:
'issue Writ, order or direction; more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/2024 dated 25.05.2024 and Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/A2/2024 dated 27.05.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 herein and Lr. No. 464/AP/SOU3/2024 dated 30.05.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, vague, ultra vires, violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 326 of the Constitution of India, violative of the preamble of the Constitution of India, violative of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, violative of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and violative of Lr. No.464/Counting Process/ 2023 - EPS dated 19.07.2023 that is issued by the Election Commission of India, and without jurisdiction; and consequently, set aside Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/2024 dated 25.05.2024 and Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/A2/2024 dated 27.05.2024 that are passed by the Respondent No.2 herein and Lr. No. 464 / AP / SOU3 / 2024 dated 30.05.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1; and pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
4. Heard Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Siva Darshan, learned counsel for 1st and 2nd respondents and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for impleaded 3rd respondent.
5. Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st petitioner contends that the proceedings dated 25.05.2024 and 27.05.2024 are in derogation of the statutory provisions of Rule 54 (A) and Rule 27 (F) of The Conduct of Election Rules,1961 (for short 'Rules, 1961') and he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and others, (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 216.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy contends that aggrieved by the proceedings dated 25.05.2024 and 27.05.2024, the Writ Petition is being filed. It is stated that as the proceedings dated 25.05.2024 and 27.05.2024 were subsequently withdrawn by the 2nd respondent and the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 30.05.2024 came to be issued, the learned counsel represents that thus, they have filed an IA seeking amendment of the prayer in the Writ Petition challenging the proceedings dated 30.05.2024, and that the said IA was allowed by this Court (3rd Vacation Bench). The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st responden
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that election disputes falling within the domain of Chapter II of R.P. Act, 1951 should be challenged through a properly constituted election petit....
Election disputes must be resolved through election petitions as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution, not through writ petitions.
An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts to demonstrate grounds under the Representation of People Act; failure to do so results in dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of....
Election recounts must adhere to procedural rules; evidence requirements are essential, and judicial review emphasizes strict adherence to pleadings.
Election - Presentation of petition - There is a specific failure of the election petitioner opposite party in compliance of Section 81 of Act, 1951 - Requirements while filing an election petition a....
Election disputes must comply strictly with statutory provisions regarding party joinder, as outlined in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
As per Rule 3 of the Rules, an Election Petition shall be instituted within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election.
The election petition must contain specific grounds and a summary of circumstances justifying the questioning of the election result, complying with the provisions of the Act and rules.
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
