A SUDHAKAR SATTAIAH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTORDIST ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel on record.

(2.) Sri M.L.AIi, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the order made by the second respondent dated 15-07-2006 and also pointed out to reference No.1, Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, letter dated 12-07-2006 and contend that it is definitely an impossibility in the light of the factual situation to believe that the second respondent had gone through the order made by this Court and then made an order of review. The learned counsel also pointed out that the original order made in WPMP's of the batch of writ petitions is left undisturbed. The learned counsel also would submit that those writ petitions were filed prior to the notification, and in fact, arguments were heard and while continuing arguments, in the meanwhile, it is stated that the notification had been issued and this Court taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances disposed of the concerned WPMP's with certain directions. The said directions were not complied with. The learned counsel also had placed before this Court an affidavit narrating the circumstances and also what actually the Division Bench opined yesterday. The counsel also further explained what is the meaning of the word or expression 'review' and the scope and ambit thjereof. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the prior order, which had been specified at length in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj would maintain that he had not done anything more than discharging his duty of communicating to the concerned officer what had transpired in the Court and in pursuance thereof taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration and also Rule 8(1) and 9(1) of the Rules, the second respondent made the order. Hence the said order is in accordance with Law. The learned counsel also had placed before this Court the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.13630 of 2006 and would explain that in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit and also in the light of the order made by the second respondent, it cannot be said that the said prder is not legal. At any rate, the learned counsel would contend that he 'may be permitted to' file a counter affidavit by giving reasonable opportunity.