K PAMULU Vs. COLLECTOR AND DIST ELECTION AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although an interesting question has been raised in this writ petition by Mr. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner questioning rejection of nomination of the writ petitioner on misinterpretation of Section 19 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, yet, having due regard to the provisions contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, we cannot interfere with the matter in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) It is not in dispute that notification for election has been issued on 22-6-2001. The impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been passed on 1-7-2001. Although, a prima facie case has been made out, having regard to the limitation of this Court's power, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Article 243-O of the Constitution reads thus:

(3.) Apart from the fact that there existed a general provision to the effect that the Writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not ordinarily interfere with an election process, a constitutional mandate now has been issued by reason of the said provision. The question raised in this application is squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in N.P. Ponnuswamy vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal wherein it has been held: