SUBBARAYULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these writ petitions, the petitioners want this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus to quash the elections.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these petitions are: In 1959, the Giddalur Taluq was divided into three parts and three blocks were constituted which are Giddalur, Komarole and Bestayarpet and they were functioning till 1934. While so, the Government with a view to reduce the number of Samithis appointed a Committee to go into the matter and make its recommendations. After receiving the report of the Committee, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued a G. O. M. S. No. 532, Panchayat Raj (Samithi I) dated 15-5-64 delimiting the existing blocks while abolishing about hundred samithis. In Giddalur Taluq which consisted of three blocks, they were reduced to two, thus resulting in the abolition of Korntrole Samithi. Against that order, the petititrer in Writ Petition 3418/64, came to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That writ petition was allowed and it was held that the notification G. O. Ms. No. 532 dated 15th. May, 1964, of the Panchayat Raj Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh being ultra vires the powers vested in the Government under Sections 3 (3) and 2 (b) was bad. Thus holding, the notification was quashed not only to the extent the delimitation of the block affects the. abolition of the Samithi, but also to the extent that each abelition affects the reconstitution of other Samithis. Before the decision of this Court as per the G. O. the authorities wanted to conduct the elections, but in fact no elections were held. It appears that thereafter on 3-7-64 another notification was issued to the effectthat elections would be held on 18-7-64. The petitioner in W. P. 1408/64 did not file his nomination or set up any candidate for the vacancy but it appears that in Writ petition 1407/64 certain persons had filed their nominations. Though it was notified that elections would be held on 18-7-64. yet it appears that on that date no election was held. Subsequently another notice was given on 6-8-64 fixing the date 22-8-64. as the date for holding the election. It is this notice that is now challenged in these writ petitions.

(3.) Sri Adinarayana Reddy, the learned counsel for the Petitioners in these Writ Petitions had advanced two arguments. His first contention is that Act 13 of 1964, only says 'any act done under the Act' and it does not refer to any action taken under the Rules. His next contention is that even if the said Act (13 of 1964) applies to rules as well, since the impugned notice is not in accordance with rule 2 (ii) read with Form III in the sense that it did not call for a fresh nomination such a notice was bad and any elections held against the provisions in pursuance of this notice would be invalid.