The court affirmed the obligation of election authorities to ensure free and fair election processes, ruling that this duty is enforceable through judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri S.Sriram, learned Senior Advocate, appearing through virtual mode representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellant in both the writ appeals, Ms.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents 1, 4 to 8 and Sri A.Akash, learned counsel representing Sri S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

2. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellant, mentioned in the morning-mentions-time that there is urgency as the election is scheduled for tomorrow i.e. 12.08.2025. He further submitted that on the Court Slip given on 07.08.2025, the matter was directed to be listed for today. Considering the request. Lunch Motion was permitted. The case has been shown in the Lunch Motion Cause List.

3. In these two writ appeals, the order under challenge is the order dated 06.08.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.20679 and 20681 of 2025.

4. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge, as follows :

Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kowuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri C. Viswanth, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2.

2. Sri C. Viswanth, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 has submitted the copies of the Proceedings of the Secretary (FAC), Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission, dated 03.08.2025. Copies of it are supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and the same are taken on record.

3. The said Proceedings were addressed to the District Collector and the same would indicate that in response to the complaint received from the Writ Petitioners herein dated 02.08.2025, the Election Commission had forwarded the same to the District Collector-cum-District Election Authority, the Superintendent of Police, YSR Kadapa District, and also to the Writ Petitioners for consideration.

4. Needless to state, the Respondent Authorities are statutorily obligated to maintain law and order and to ensure the smooth conduct of the election.

5. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of No order as to costs.

6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ”

5. The writ appellant in both the writ appeals is the writ petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.20679 and 20681 of 2025.

6. The writ petition(s) were filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, raising the grievance that the petitioner(s) filed the respective representations dated 02.08.2025, with respect to the measures to be taken to conduct the fair election of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constitution Member, in the constituency of Pulivendula respectively but no action was taken on the representations.

-

7. Sri S.Sriram, learned Senior Advocate, representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that though the learned Single Judge observed in para-3, as quoted above, but he ought to have called for the response as to the action taken on the representations as it was not known as to what further action had been taken by those authorities on the petitioner’s representations.

8. Sri S.Sriram, learned Senior Advocate, further submits, placing reliance in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi , (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 405 that the petition for direction to conduct free and fair elections is maintainable and is not hit by the provisions