BODDULAKRISHNAIAH Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.

(2.) The controversy relates to election to the Gram Panchayat, Nalgonda District of Andhra Pradesh. The Notification was issued on June 7, 1995 to conduct elections to the Gram Panchayat under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (No. 13 of 1994) (for short the 'Act'). The electoral rolls of the Gram Panchayat were required to be finalised 30 days prior to the poll. It would appear that in the draft roll prepared by the competent authority, names of about 94 persons find their place but later their names were deleted. Consequently, they filed Writ Petition No. 3060/95 in the High Court including respondent Nos. 6-42 in this case. The elections were held on 27th June, 1995. By an order dated 26th June, 1995 the High Court, by an interim order directed to allow 94 persons to participate in the election but on the date of the poll they could not exercise their franchise. Subsequently, in WPMP No. 16901/95 the respondent Nos. 6-42 sought direction to permit them to exercise their franchise. By an interim order dated July 6, 1995, the direction was issued by the High Court not to declare the result of the election of the Gram Panchayat. The appellant and proforma respondent No. 43 filed WVMP No. 2478/95 to vacate the direction issued by the High Court on July 6, 1995. On November 8, 1995, the High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Nalgonda to scrutinise the claims of respondent Nos. 6-42 and ascertain whether they are residing in the village. By proceedings dated December 2, 1995, the RDO found that only 20 persons were eligible to be included in the voters list as they were found living in the village, during the enquiry. On these facts, the High Court by the impugned order dated December 22, 1995 directed that 20 persons out of respondent Nos. 6-42, who were found eligible to vote should be allowed to participate in the election. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

(3.) The only question is whether the High Court would be justified in giving the direction for participating the 20 persons who are found to be eligible to vote for exercising their franchise separately when the poll was already over. Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that once the election process was set in motion, by operation of Article 243 (o) of the Constitution, the High Court was not justified in directing 20 persons to participate in the election. The appropriate remedy would be by way of an election petition. The object of the Act, the Rules made thereunder and Article 243 (o) is to see that the elections process to the Gram Panchayat, once is set in motion, the process should be culminated in the declaration of the result of election and any dispute in relation to the conduct of the election would be subject-matter of an election dispute and would be dealt with by the appropriate Tribunal in accordance with law. The High Court, therefore, was not justified in giving the aforesaid direction. Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondents have filed the writ petition in January, 1995 much earlier than the election process notified questioning deletion of their names from the draft electoral rolls. It is found as a fact that though their names were appearing in the draft electoral rolls, they were deleted without giving an opportunity to the residents of village Narayanpur. In the enquiry, names of as many as 20 eligible persons were found and yet they were denied the exercise of their right to franchise when the order passed by the High Court on June 26, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 3060/95 which was allowed to become final. The direction to allow them to participate in the election was frustrated by preventing them to exercise their franchise which is in the teeth of the Court's order. Therefore, the High Court was justified in giving direction in the writ petition. It is also contended that the High Court, pending the writ petition, gave the direction and it being discretionary, this Court would be slow to interfere with the order under Article 136 of the Constitution.