ANAKAPALLI APPALRAJU Vs. PENTAKATA SIVA KONDARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ending a long spell of Special Officers tutelage in the State, the State Government recently conducted elections to the local bodies. Electrictions to Anakapalli Municipal Council with which we are concerned here, were held in the latter half of July, 1981. So far as it is material to this case we need note that the writ petitioners filed their nominations from ward numbers 26, 24,23,14,25 and 27. Those nominations were accepted, but the election officer, the second respondent, notified the notices of withdrawals of the petitioners from the municipal election from those wards. Accepting of the writ petitioners notices of withdrawals left in the field only one candidate contesting for each one of the above wards except the double-member ward of 27 where there were two contesting candidates. Accordingly, the Returning Officer declared respondents 9,7,6,10,5,8 and 11 as having been returned imposed from the above-mentioned wards. The writ petitioners feeling aggrieved by the above action of the Election Officer and the Returning Officer, filed writ Petition No. 5345/81 challenging the action of the Election Officer notifying the withdrawals of the petitioners nominations from the aforesaid wards and declaring the above mentioned respondents as returned. The petitioners writ petition was partly allowed by Gangadhara Rao J., by his order dated 18-8-81. The learned Judge, on the basis of his finding that the 2nd respondent did not hold even a summary inquiry into the question whether the petitioners signed voluntarily or not on the notices of withdrawals, directed the second respondent, Election Officer, to hold a summary inquiry into the question whether the writ petitioners had in fact signed the notices of withdrawals voluntarily and whether those notices were attested by the fourth respondent. The learned Judge further directed that

(2.) The above direction of Gangadhara Rao, J. has satisfied neither the writ petitioners nor the respondents 5 to 11 Against that judgement the writ petitioners have filed Writ Appeal N0. 485/81 objecting to the direction to held further inquiry and claiming that the learned single Judge should have straightway accepted their case and directed re-election after setting aside the election of respondents 5 to 11. On the other hand, respondents 5 to 11 have filed Writ Appeal No. 473/81 complaining against the direction of the learned single Judge to hold a summary inquiry above-referred to and giving the above contingent declaration.

(3.) The seven writ petitioners filed their nominations from wards Nos. 26,24,23,24,14,25 and 27. The last date for withdrawal of valid nominations was fixed as 2 p.m. on 20-7-81. The second respondent, acting on the basis of notices of withdrawals which were admitted to have been signed by the petitioners and which were presented to the second respondent by two Appala Naidus and received by him at 2 p.m. on 20-7-81; declared and notified that the petitioners had withdrawn their nominations. This was followed by a consequential declaration that respondents 5 to 11 were elected unopposed from the aforementioned wards.