Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 555
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Thummala Hemanth Reddy, S/O. Late thummala Maheswara reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO 21208 of 2025, 21209/2025, 21212/2025, 21213/2025
Decided On : 11-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V.R. REDDY KOVVURI, RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI
For the Respondent: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
Court has limited scope for interfering with election processes once commenced, prioritizing voter information over procedural lapses.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 25 - Election Commission guidelines- Petitioners challenge the shifting of polling stations causing inconvenience and non-adherence to procedural guidelines. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5)
(B) Election Process - Scope of intervention by Courts - The Court refrains from interfering in the election process once commenced. (Paras 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners contest the relocation of polling stations from a distance of two kilometers to four kilometers, raising procedural and inconvenience concerns.
Findings of Court:
The State Election Commission's non-publication in newspapers is insufficient to cause prejudice due to the issuance of poll-slips to voters.
Issues: Whether the change of polling stations adheres to statutory procedures and causes unjustifiable inconvenience.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that interference in electoral processes is limited, and non-compliance with a circular does not warrant intervention if voters are informed adequately.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge related to polling stations (Para 2) |
| 2. procedural adherence for polling station changes (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 14) |
| 3. guidelines for polling stations in hand book (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. state election commission's compliance and steps (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court's deference to election process (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's refusal to interfere before elections (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. dismissal of writ petitions with no costs (Para 20 , 21) |
COMMON ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21208 of 2025, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.21209 of 2025, Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Jalla Sudharsan Reddy , learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.21212 of 2025, Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21213 of 2025 and Sri Viswanath Challa, learned Counsel representing Sri S. Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission.
2. The common challenge in all these Writ Petitions relate to the shifting of the polling stations from the former stations to the new ones in the Pulivendula ZPTC for the by-elections.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have raised the issues with regard to the non-adherence to the substantive procedures of making the voters aware of the proposed shifting of the polling booths. The other contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is with regard to the inconvenience caused to the public by changing of the erstwhile polling stations to the present polling stations as the distance with regard to the earlier polling stations is two kilometers, whereas, the present polling stations are at a distance of four kilometers.
-
4. Learned Counsel for the parties have also raised issues with regard to the non-adherence to the guidelines mentioned in the Hand Book published by the Election Commission of India as well as the Circular issued by the State Election Commission, dated 19.03.2019.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court to Section 25 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, dealing with the polling stations for constituencies.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have also drawn the attention of this Court to the importance of Hand Book and particularly the contents in paragraph No.1.2 of the Hand Book published by the Election Commission of India.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have also referred to Chapter II in the Hand Book dealing with the polling stations. Particularly, the learned Counsel have drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.2.1.3 and 2.2.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have also drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.2.8 and 2.8.4 to 2.8.10.
9. The provisions of the Hand Book dealing with the modification in the list of polling stations, at paragraph Nos.2.10 up to 2.10.4, wherein, necessary guidelines have been issued.
10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portions of the Circular issued by the State Election Commission, dated 19.03.2019. Paragraph No.6 of the said Circular would indicate that prepared lists of polling booths shall be published in the Newspapers apart from following the statutory procedures of publishing the list in the Offices of Mandal Praja Parishad or Zilla Praja Parishad or Gram Panchayat, as the case may be. Paragraph Nos.6a to 6d of the Circular dated 19.03.2019, is usefully extracted hereunder:
“6. PUBLICATION OF THE LIST OF POLLING STATIONS IN DRAFT:
a) After the list has been prepared on the lines indicated above, and after receipt of notification from the A.P. State Election Commission fixing programme for publication of list of Polling Stations, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and Asst. District Election
