Election grievances must be addressed through statutory election petitions, not writ proceedings, reinforcing that the Election Commission should act based on reports by election officials.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

1. Assailing the common order dated 14.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 21648 & 21661 of 2025, the petitioner therein preferred these intra court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. Inasmuch as these appeals arise out of a common order, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. The contents of the writ petitions, in brief, are that leaders and supporters of the ruling party along with men gathered at polling stations arming with deadly weapons did not permit the polling agents of their opponent candidates to enter into polling stations, captured the polling booths, intimidated the voters and rigged the votes and though complained the police as well as polling officers did not take any action, therefore, there was abdication of statutory duty cast upon them.

4. The learned single Judge, upon considering the contents of the writ petitions and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed both the writ petitions vide common order. The said common order was called in question in these writ appeals.

5. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for appellants in both the writ appeals, learned Government Pleaders for Panchayat Raj and Home for official respondents, Sri S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission, Sri Shaik Mohd.Ismail, learned counsel for respondent no.14 in W.A.No.963 of 2025 and Sri K.Yashwanth, learned counsel for respondent no.7 in W.A.No.1001 of 2025 and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General for the State in both the writ appeals.

6. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for appellants in both the writ appeals, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavits and grounds of appeal would contend that the State Election Commission had utterly failed to curb the large scale irregularities committed by the ruling party on the day of election and despite being pointed out the learned single Judge, misconstruing the relief sought for, erroneously dismissed the writ petitions. He would further contend that intervention of law Courts for facilitating free and fair process of election is not barred by Articles 329(b) or 243(O) of the Constitution and the view taken by the learned single Judge that State Election Commission cannot order repolling except on the reports of election machinery is misconceived and the learned Judge failed to observe that abstinence of State Election Commission from intervention facilitated the ruling party to violate the law at will. He, therefore, prayed to allow the writ appeals.

7. On the other hand, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General, justified the impugned common order and submitted that the order of the learned single Judge does not warrant any interference of this Court, that the writ appeals devoid of merit and they deserve dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ appeals. Sri S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission, Sri Shaik Mohd.Ismail and Sri K.Yashwanth, learned counsel, addressed arguments on similar lines.

8. The prime grievance of the appellants is that people who are not the residents of the respective territorial constituency have participated in voting, their polling agents were prevented from entering the polling booths to discharge their functions as agents and their sympathisers were not allowed to franchise and there was booth cap