G. Krishna. vs A P State Election Commission
2021 Latest Caselaw 1076 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

            Writ Petition No.4324 of 2021


Order:

     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

N.Ashwani Kumar, learned standing counsel for 1st

respondent, Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned standing

counsel for 5th respondent and Sri Manohar Reddy,

learned standing counsel takes notice and appears for

6th respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner raises an issue

that the 6th respondent has been convicted in a

Sessions Case and he has not disclosed his criminal

case when filing his nomination. According to the

learned counsel, this is totally contrary to the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and

also the law on the subject which mandates that the

person has to disclose his antecedents/convictions etc.

It is his contention that the 6th respondent was

convicted in SC No.991 of 2002 on the file of III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, LB Nagar,

Ranga Reddy District. He also states that the appeal

filed was also dismissed.

The grievance of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that despite this fact being brought to the

notice of the 4th and 5th respondents, they did not take

any action and on the contrary accepted the

nomination of the 6th respondent. Therefore, the

learned counsel argues that it is a fit case in which this

Court should interfere since the action of the 4th and

5th respondents are contrary to the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also the statute.

In reply to this, the learned standing counsel for

the State Election Commission, learned standing

counsel for the 5th respondent and learned standing

counsel for the 6th respondent uniformly argue that

granting of any order during the process of the election

is expressly prohibited by the law on the subject.

All the counsels draw the attention of this Court to the

Full Bench judgment reported in Kalla Ramakrishna

vs State Election Commission1. They also submit

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has time and

again cautioned the Courts in granting any order which

may have affect of impeding the election process.

Therefore, without prejudice to their rights and legal

submissions, the learned counsels submit that the only

2004 (6) ALD 587

remedy opened to the petitioner is to file a proper

Election Petition since disputed questions of fact also

cannot be decided in this writ petition.

This Court after hearing all the learned counsels

is of the opinion that there is sufficient strength of

what is stated by the learned counsel for the

respondents. Time and again it has been laid down by

the highest Courts of land that in cases of this nature

it is only a Election Petition that is the remedy. Apart

from that, questions of fact cannot be gone into under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the settled law on the subject of both

these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the writ

petition has to be dismissed at the stage of admission

itself. The petitioner can however pursue is remedies as

per law.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if

any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date : 23.02.2021 VSL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

Writ Petition No.4324 of 2021

Dated : 23.02.2021

VSL