N SEKHAR Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Indian democracy despite the constitutional measures, the other legislative measures and the reforms, suffers from several ills. The Apex Court on several occasions had cautioned the constitutional functionaries and other wings in this regard. It is needles to say that these instances being too numerous, this court is not inclined to elaborate the same. Be that as it may, the democratic features as basic features had been well emphasized in A. K. Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras (1950 S. C. R. 88) , Keshavananda Bharathi Sripadagalvaru Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 S. C. 1461) , and also in Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (AIR 2002 S. C. 2112). In Union of India Vs. Naveen Jindal ((2004) 2 SCC 510) the Apex Court observed that the beauty of the Indian Constitution is that the entire structure of the country is based thereupon. It is the very pillar upon which the democracy of India stands. In Dattreya and others vs. Mahaveer and others ((2004) 10 S. C. C. 655) it was observed that fair play is the basic principle seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Thigarajan and Others Vs. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and others ((2004) 5 S. C. C. 762) it was observed that it is the obligation of the courts of law to further clear intendment of the legislation and not to frustrate it by excluding the same. These batch of writ petitions were filed prior to the Election Notification dated 10-06-2006 questioning the validity of the voters list on different grounds, statutory like the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act') , the G. O. Ms. No. 254, the supresession thereof and also the several constitutional provisions governing the field in this regard and further pointing out the constitutional or the statutory vacuum created, serious gap even in subordinate Legislation, in relation to the drawing up of the voters list and how the gross root democracy is ultimately affected by virtue of the same.

(2.) As already referred to supra, these writ petitions were filed prior to the issuance of election notification aforesaid but however, these are being disposed of subsequent to the issuance of the notification. At the out set it may be stated that several other writ petitions inclusive of these writ petitions came up before the learned single Judge and in the said batch on 01-06-2006 the learned single Judge had made the following order while posting the writ petitions for admission on 19-06-2006. "having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the following directions are given: 1]. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj shall undertake an exhaustive review on the reorganization of MPTCs in various Mandals in the State and take necessary steps to ensure that: a) Whether the number of MPTCs in a Mandal remains unaltered, the existing set up is not disturbed. b) Whether the number of MPTCs in a Mandal has increased on account of rise in population, the reorganization of the MPTCs must be such that the MPTCs where the highest growth of population has been recorded are reorganized; and the others are not touched. c) No village which is not contiguous to other villages in an MPTC are allotted or attached to it, i. e. Territorial contiguity must be ensured; and d) Perfect balance is mentioned as regards the number of villages in each MPTC in the Mandal. If such exercise warrants any rearrangement or reorganization of MPTCs, it shall be open to the Commissioner to issue necessary directions before the election notification is issued. The complaints and representations received in this regard shall be taken into account. Necessary instructions shall also be issued to the District Collectors. The State Election Commissioner shall issue necessary directions to the District Collectors as well as the Electoral Registration Officers in the State. a) to ensure that the sanctity of the voters' list published in February, 2006 is maintained in the mater of utilizing the same for the Panchayat Raj Elections: b) to ascertain whether the deletion or addition of names subsequent to the publication of the list in February, 2006, is preceded by necessary exercise contemplated under Sections 21 and 22 of the R. P. Act, by undertaking proper verification: c) to bestow specific attention to situations where large scale additions and deletions of voters has taken place in the list published under Rule 5 of A. P. Panchayat Raj (Preparation and Publication of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 2000, contained in G. O. Ms. No. 254, dated 04-08-2000. It shall be open to the aggrieved individuals as well as the public representatives to bring the instances of deletions and inclusions to the notice of the concerned Electoral Registration Officers, who in turn shall undertake proper exercise before a final list is published under Rule 6. The exercises indicated above shall be undertaken expeditiously and completed before the Election Notification is issued. "

(3.) These matters were carried by way of writ appeals, writ appeal No. 568 of 2006 and batch and the learned Division Bench by order dated 9-6-2006 made the following Order:-"hence, the appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. In order to facilitate early consideration of the prayer of the writ petitioners, we direct that-1) The respondents in the writ petition should file counter-affidavits latest by 13-6-2006 after supplying advanced copies to the counsel for the petitioners. 2) The petitioners shall be free to file rejoinder affidavits, if any, on or before 15-6-2006. 3) All the writ petitions be listed before the Single Bench on 16-6-2006. 4) The Single Bench shall be free to hear the arguments on the main petitions and decide the same. 5) The petitioners shall also be at liberty to make a request for adjudication for their prayer for stay. 6) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the order passed in the appeals shall not operate as an impediment in the consideration of the writ petitioners' prayer for stay. At the same time, we make it clear that the respondents shall be free to take all legally permissible objections to the grant of interim relief. While disposing of the appeals in the manner indicated above, we deem it proper to recapitulate the statement of the learned Advocate General that all those who have filed objections against the wrongful deletion of their names from the voters list and have succeed in persuading the competent authority to accept their plea, shall be entitled to cast their vote in the forthcoming election irrespective of the fact that their names are not reflected in the electoral roll. However, it is made clear that this direction would be operative qua the orders passed till the date of notification of election and not thereafter. On the oral request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we clarify that the election, if any, held before the final adjudication of the writ petitions would be subject to the result of the writ petitions. ".