(1.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties we delivered the operative portion of the judgment in Court. Reasons for the order have been recorded by us in chambers and delivered in Court to-day which are as follows: The Constitution, of India which is envisaged as the Union of States, has provided for a Parliament and State Legislatures and elections on the basis of adult suffrage. Insertion of Part IX of the Constitution is extended to Gram Sabha, a body consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating tc the area of panchayat at the village level, to exercise such powers and perform such functions at the village level as the Legislature of State may by law provide, The provisions for constitution of Panchayats and composition thereof provide for the Chair Person of a panchayat and other members whether or not chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area. The Legislature of the State has enacted the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Acl No-XIII of 1994; as amended by Act V of 1995 to provide for the constitution ol panchayats in the State and to carry out the purposes as envisaged under the Act, the State Government has framed rules under section 268 of the Act. The process of elections, it seems, started with the contemplated preparation of the electoral roll and accordingly to elect the members and Chair Person of the panchayats. This, however, was preceded by the appointment of the State Election Commission under Article 243,K by the Governor of the State. It has happened however that on grounds not only of prejudices for the reason of violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules but also violation of the constitutional mandates in several respects, before elections are finally held and concluded, several persons/voters/candidates have moved this Court undei Article 226 of the Constitution and a batch of such petitions have been disposed of by us vide our judgment dated 26-6-1995. The Government of the State has filed petitions seeking review of our judgment in certain respects.
(2.) Learned Advocate General has produced along with the review application an affidavit by an Officer of the PanchayatRaj, Rural Development and Relief Department of the State Government and annexed to the same "post judgment posers", which according to him have caused the filing of the review petition for certain clarifications and if necessary modifications in the directions of the Court and not outright rescinding or cancelling of the directions issued by us. The Foser with respect to the direction of the Court to the State Election Commission, to identify the territorial constituencies including panchayats which are reserved for Backward Class candidates and to ascertain the population of the Backward Classes in the territorial constituencies, and in case the population of the Backward Class in the said constituencies is on an average such that the same could be reserved by reference to the population, to declare the result of the election, and in case it is otherwise to direct for a fresh election by reallotment of seats based on population, is: Will the identification of the territorial constituencies including panchays ts which are reserved for Backward Class candidates and ascertaining the population of the Backward Classes in territorial constituencies involve identification of the territorial constituencies which should have been reserved but were not reserved and instead such constituencies were reserved which had inadequate population of the Backward Classes and thus will it not enter into all the territorial constituencies and the panchayats and therefore, until such verification, results of elections in all constituencies will have to be kept in abeyance.
(3.) According to the learned Advocate General, the State Election Commissioner has so read the direction and has stayed, notwithstanding the specific directions of this Court, publication of results in all territorial constituencies. With respect to the second direction of the Court,