Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13056
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
THUMMALA HEMANTH REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 21211/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D DORABABU
For the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
Factual disputes in writ petitions necessitate trial proceedings rather than adjudication in writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, and 21 - Writ petition alleging violation of election rules by an independent candidate campaigning for a political party - Court held that factual issues require a trial for resolution - Dismissal of the writ petition as no grounds established for interference. (Paras 2-5)
(B) Election Law - Model Code of Conduct - Allegations of violation must be substantiated with evidence - Court not entertain such petitions without a proper trial. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner contended that the unofficial respondent, a candidate, was violating election rules by campaigning for a ruling party candidate, undermining his independent status.
Findings of Court:
Court found that the allegations were factual and required trial.
Issues: Whether the independent candidate's actions violated the Model Code of Conduct?
Ratio Decidendi: Court reasoned that the petition raised factual issues not suitable for writ jurisdiction, necessitating a trial.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition alleging misconduct requires evidence and trial. (Para 2) |
| 2. allegations of campaigning violations undermine the integrity of independent candidates. (Para 3) |
| 3. factual issues are not suitable for summary judgment. (Para 4) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed without costs. (Para 5) |
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri D. Dorababu, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri Dhammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General representing the Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Sri Viswanath Challa, learned Counsel representing Sri S. Vivekchandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission (Respondent No.2) and Sri Adinarayana Rao B, learned Senior Counsel appearing online for the Unofficial Respondent No.5.
2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 in acting on the representation, dated 06.08.2025 submitted by the petitioner, bringing to her notice that, the respondent No.5 who is contesting as an independent candidate is openly associating and actively campaigning in favour of the ruling party thereby violating the model code of conduct and sanctity of contesting as an independent candidate as arbitrary, illegal, abdication of the statutory duty cast on her and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed him under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No 2 (i) disqualify the respondent No 5 from contesting the election on the grounds of violation of the election rules and misuse of independent candidature (ii) withdrawal of all election-related privileges and facilities extended to the respondent No.5 as a contesting candidate including provision of vehicles, appointment of general/polling/counting agents and movement as contesting candidate within the constituency, (iii) restrict his activities to that of an ordinary voter only, thereby ensuring the fairness of the electoral process and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The facts would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has a grievance against the Unofficial Respondent No.5 to the effect that the said Unofficial Respondent No.5, being a contesting candidate, is canvassing on behalf of another candidate contesting from a different political party and that the same would undermine the integrity of the independent status of the Unofficial Respondent. It is the contention of the Writ Petitioner that this is contrary to the Model Code of Conduct.
4. At the outset, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition cannot be entertained, inasmuch as the issues raised by the Writ Petitioner are factual in nature and shall require a trial to prove the correctness of the allegations.
5. In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
