TELUGU DESAM PARTY Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Nuti Rama Mohana Rao takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. G.P.for Home takes notice on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. The Telugu Desam political party, the main opposition party in the State of Andhra Pradesh had approached this court for issuance of suitable directions. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct the impending Local Body elections scheduled to be held on 28-6-2006 and 2-7-2006 afteraffording necessary protection to the petitioner party candidates and after satisfying themselves through the reports of the concerned and other higher officials about the atmosphere in the electoral place and ensure that the same are free from fear and terror and pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) The interim reliefs prayed for in the W.P.M.Ps are as hereunder: W.P.M.P. 15941 of2006isfiled praying for a direction to the respondents to direct their subordinates not to take oppressive steps such as arresting or threatening the petitioner party candidates or their supporters on the eve of impending Local Body elections pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other suitable orders. W.P.M.P. 15942 of 2006 is filed praying for a direction to the authorities to give the petitioner party candidates such necessary protection so as to enable them to function and participate in the election process pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such othersuitable orders.

(3.) The counsel who had taken notice on behalf of the respondents requested time to file counter-affidavits in detail in answer to several allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel representing the petitioner however would maintain that the Local Body Elections are scheduled to be held on 28-6-2006 and 2-7-2006 and inasmuch as the first phase would commence tomorrow morning at 7.00 a.m., there is urgency in the matter and hence appropriate orders may be passed on the W.P.M.Ps. Sri S. RamaChandra Rao, the learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that this is an extraordinary situation where the opposition party in the State of Andhra Pradesh had approached this court by making serious allegations which would clearly go to show that free and fair poll in the Local Body Elections would not be possible. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to several representations made to the first respondent on the inaction on part of the first respondent in relation there to. The learned counsel also incidentally had referred to certain news items and the contents thereof. The counsel by drawing the attention of this court had specifically referred to Paras 7,8 and 9 of the affidavit tiled in support of the writ petition and had explained certain events. Further, the learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the series of incidents, which had happened throughoutthe State in different districts. Specific reference was made by the learned counsel to Para -12 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition wherein it was stated that "it is unfortunate that Sri Meenakshi Naidu, Ex. M.L.A., informed me personally that 2,000 supporters of Telugu Desam Party in Adoni Assembly Constituency and other places in Kurnool District were served with notices signed by local Sub Inspector of Police asking the recipient to exercise his vote and sit at home. Sri Naidu further informed that Telugu Desam Party workers are booked in binding over proceedings to prevent them and put them under threat to exercise their franchise". The learned counsel while further narrating and elaborating the submissions had taken this court through Para-15 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and had specified nine instances referred to in the said Para. The learned counsel also had pointed out in relation to the forcible withdrawals, which had been specified as 1 to 14 at Page 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Further specific allegations were made in relation to how representations were made to the first respondent and how no proper action in this regard had been initiated. Specific stand was taken that the present elections became mockery of democratic process. The learned counsel also pointed out the instances of violation of the Code of Electoral Conduct and the relevant paras in relation there to. The learned counsel also highlighted what in fact had happened in Pulivendula Mandal. The counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to Para -16 wherein the representation dated 21 -6-2006 had been specifically referred to. Para 18 also was referred to wherein the representation dated 9-6-2006 had been specified. Several details had been narrated and ultimately the counsel would conclude that in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the Election Commission the first respondent is not carrying on its constitutional duties as ordained by Article 243-K of the Constitution of India. This Court as Constitutional Court may have to protect the interest of the petitioner so as to safeguard the free and fair elections in the ensuing Local Body Elections.