N. Aneesha Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 797 AP

 

oN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATL_

FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWE NE
:PRESENT: eo

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULI

   
  
  

 

 

   

|.A.No. 1 of 2021
IN
W.P.No. 3423 of 2021
Between :-

N. Aneesha Reddy, W/o. N. Srinadha Reddy, Aged about 50 years, In-charge, Telugu
Desam Party, Punganur Constituency, R/0.27-57/19-2-21, Gokul Street, Punganur,
Chittoor District. ...Petitioner
(Petitioner in W.P.No. 3423 of 2021
on the file of High Court)
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and
Rural Development Department, A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District
2. The Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, 45
Floor, New HOD's Building, MG Road, Vijayawada
3. The District Collector and District Election Authority, Chittoor District at
Chittoor
4. The District Panchayat Officer / Returning Officer, Chittoor District at Chittoor
...Respondents.
(Respondents in-do-)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to consider
the Representation dated 8-02-2021 made to the 2% Respondent and accordingly
direct the 38° and 4" Respondents to take appropriate steps to ensure free and fair
elections in Punganur Assembly Constituency, Chittoor District pending disposal of
W.P. No. 3423 of 2021, on the file of the High Court.

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit
filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. SODUM ANVESHA,
Advocate for the Petitioner and of the G.P. FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL & Rural
Development on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri N. Ashwani Kumar,
Standing Counsel for Election Commission for respondent No.2, the Court made the
following

ORDER :-
 

 

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
I.A.No.1 of 2021

WRIT PETITION No.3423 of 2021
ORDER:

This main Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the representation dated 08.02.2021 and also to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to take appropriate steps.

The petitioner before this Court is the representative of a political party alleging that there are irregularities taking place in the ongoing Panchayat elections in the acceptance of nomination papers, coercion by the police, forced withdrawals of nominations, misuse of official power etc. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 31.01.2021 to the 2nd respondent, this is followed by another representation dated 01.02.2021 by their party leader. Another representation dated 08.02.2021 was given by the petitioner and ultimately by the leader of the opposition and leader of the political party on 08.02.2021. Very serious allegations are raised in these representations. In the affidavit it is mentioned that one Minister, who was elected from Punganur Assembly Constituency is playing an important role in the above. It is stated that the ruling party supporters are threatening the candidates etc., and that the Minister, who hails from that area is exercising influence over the officers, who are working in that area. It is also alleged malpractices have been committed by the

leaders in collusion with the" officials. They questioned the

ee

inaction of the 24 respondent in acting on the series of complaints / representations that they have made.

Learned senior counsel Sri Veera Reddy, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, relying upon the case law that he has submitted including Jyoti Deepak Chavan and Ors., v Election Commissioner State Election Commission and Ors.!, All India Anna Deavida Munnertra Kazhagam v The State Election Commissioner and Ors., 2 and Kanchupati Nageswara Rao v Alla Anjaneya Reddy and Ors. ? has forcefully argued that the State Election Commissioner, who is the sole repository of the power over the conduct of elections is failing to exercise his duty even when specific instances are brought to his notice. Learned senior counsel points out that in the representations submitted specific instances were brought to the attention of the authorities and the officers including the police, who are however siding with the ruling party and are preventing the contesting candidates from fling their nominations etc., and are also threatening to lodge false cases. Various instances are highlighted to support the arguments. Learned senior counsel argues that wide and extensive powers are given to the State Election Commission to ensure that free and fair elections are conducted. He submits the power of superintendence, direction and control as enumerated in Article 324 of the Constitution of

India is for the entire election process, viz., from the filing of the

1 Manu/M#/1806/2019 2 Manu/TN/7110/2007 3 Manu/AP/0139/2009 a"

E e

a i :

¢ i

nomination till the formal declaration of the election. Learned senior counsel submits that a free and fair election is only possible when the officers concerned act as per the mandate given to them. Relying on these cases learned senior counsel submits these are all cases where the power of the High Court under Article 226 is also exercised. He points out that in the charged political atmosphere that is prevalent, particularly in the Punganur Assembly Constituency holding a free and fair election is not possible at all immediately or in some more villages in which they are scheduled to be held in the last phase. Therefore, learned senior counsel submits that this Court should itself interfere and give directions to the 274 respondent to fearlessly discharge his constitutional obligations and ensure that a free and fair election is conducted.

For the State Election Commission, Sri N. Ahswani Kumar, learned standing counsel appears and states that batches of complaints were received. On 04.02.2021 about 21 complaints were received, which were immediately forwarded to the District Collector. Similarly, on 05.02.2021, 23 complaints were received. On 06.02.2021, 10 complaints were received and on 08.02.2021, 13 more complaints were received. By 09.02.2021, learned standing counsel submits that a District Magistrate has responded and 10 grievances were in fact answered. Two FIRs were also registered on 02.02.2021 in both Punganuru Urban Police Station and Sodum Police Station viz., FIR No.39 of 2021 of Sodum P.S. Therefore, learned standing counsel argues that the

State Election Commission has acted as required and that the i

petitioner or other similarly placed persons, who are affected by the alleged actions in the said District can approach the Election Commission for redressal. It is his contention that even today before the arguments were being advanced the Superintendent of Police and the Dy. Superintendent of Police of that area were directed to act forthwith. Learned standing counsel submits that the Commissioner, State Election Commission is regulatory authority and the actual implementation and execution is to be carried on by the officers on the ground.

Sri Sumon, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General appears on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4. He argues that petitioner has no locus standi. It is his contention that it is not a Public Interest Litigation for the petitioner to espouse the cause of the general public. He also points out that there Is not infringement of the petitioner's right and that this Court cannot grant any relief whatsoever to the petitioner, let alone positive direction to act in a particular manner. He also submits that judicial restraint is to be exercised and this Court cannot direct the constitutional authority or an officer to act in a particular manner.

This Court after hearing all the learned counsel notices that the prayer in the interim application is only to consider the representation and to direct the 3"¢ and 4th respondents to take appropriate steps to ensure a free and fair election. The grievance of the petitioner that is being urged is that the contesting candidates are being forced to withdraw nominations and in

certain cases candidates are being prevented from filing

--

nominations. Allegations are also made, the nominations, ~ otherwise valid are being disqualified and papers accompanying the nominations being torn etc. These are all matters of fact. The allegations made are no doubt serious. But at this stage, this Court cannot go into the merits or the demerits of each of these elections. In the case law that is cited, more particularly AAADMK case the Madras High Court had an opportunity of hearing the matter completely. Materials were also produced before the Division Bench and ultimately the Division Bench interfered. Therefore, the submission of the learned senior counsel relying on this case have to be appreciated against the backdrop of the facts. No case can be distanced from the facts. It is settled law that even the difference of one fact can make a difference in applicability of the ratio. Similarly, even in Jyothi Deepak Chavan case the matter was heard on merits. Pleadings were filed and thereafter the order was passed. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court also noticed the fact that in such matters, particularly in electoral matters, allegations and counter allegations are hurled thick and fast. This High Court is also deciding a number of such matters where allegations and counter allegations are being hurled thick and fast. Even today similar matters are heard. Lastly, even in the Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kanchupati Nageswara Rao case the Court was hearing a Writ Appeal arising out of an order passed by learned single Judge. In all these cases the Court had facts /

evidence before this Court, which lead to the conclusions.

This Court at this stage does not have the benefit of assessing the truth or otherwise of the allegations that are made. Even otherwise this Court exercising the power under Article 226 cannot go into the disputed questions of fact. So, this Court is not pronouncing anything on the merits or the demerits of the © factual issues raised. The issues raised (if they are true) are serious.

However, the facts remain that free and fair election is the foundation of a healthy democracy. A free and fair election is possible if the candidates can contest the election without any pressure and if the voters can exercise their franchise without fear of intimidation, coercion etc. This is the sort of election that the founding fathers of this great democracy had envisaged and desired. This is the election that should be held at every level. This is the reason why the 274 respondent-Commissioner is given wide ranging powers to act properly and to ensure a free and fair election. In the opinion of this Court the words used in Article 324 of the Constitution of India: "superintendence, direction and control for the conduct of the election are not empty words. They clothe the 2.4 respondent with the powers necessary to deal with the myriad situation's that would arise in a democracy as varied and a country as big as India. For every situation a rule or a regulation cannot be thought of in advance and be included in the statute book. Depending on the situation, decisions must be taken as per the law. This is the reason why the general power of superintendence, direction, control and conduct is given to the

State Election Commissioner. In the words of the Hon'bie

tat rtm sSesamsnwlen

Supreme Court of India he is the sole repository of the entire power.

This Court is not sitting in appeal over the action of the 274 respondent or nor it is in a position to substitute its own decisions or wisdom for the discretion vested in law in the 224 respondent. This Court is not talking of the truth or otherwise of the allegation. The appropriate course, therefore, for this Court is to direct the 2nd respondent to promptly look into the issues raised with all the power, men and machinery at his command and ensure that the constitutional goal of a "free and fair" elections is achieved. With the fond hope that the elections, which are going on and which are likely to be held in future would be held in a free and fair atmosphere, this order is passed.

This Court does not wish to enter into further discussion nor does it want to "advise" or direct the 2.4 respondent. However, the number of Writs being filed are prompting this finding. It is hoped that the 274 respondent with the assistance of the police,

revenue and other officials, who are at his disposal and command

- will consider the representations made in their proper perspective,

but strictly in accordance with law. It is hoped that the 'steel frame' i.e., the bureaucracy / police etc., will also rise to the occasion and aid / assist the State Election Commission in the discharge of his duties. In view of the judgment reported in the

case of S.P. Gupta and Ors., v President of India and Ors.,*

4 AIR 1982 SC 149

the issue of locus standi of the petitioner is left open for further

hearing. : \ Accordingly, this application is ordered. \ , \ List the main Writ Petition on 05.03.2021, for counters, if any.

Sd/- B. PRASADA RAJU, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// / for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To

1.The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District --

2.The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission, 1** Floor, New HOD's Building, MG Road, Vijayawada

3.The District Collector and District Election Authority, Chittoor District at Chittoor

4. The District Panchayat Officer / Returning Officer, Chittoor District at Chittoor (Addressee Nos. 1 to 4 by RPAD)

5.Two CCs to the G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of A.P., At Amaravati(OUT)

6.One CC to M/s. Sodum Anvesha, Advocate(OPUC)

7.One CC to Sri N.Ashwani Kumr, Standing Counsel for State Election Commission, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati. . ,

8.One spare copy.

TKK

HIGH COURT

DVSS.J

DT.12-02-2021.

ORDER

|.A.No. 1 of 2021

IN

W.P.No. 3423 of 2021.

|.A. IS ALLOWED (DIRECTION)

k) he Se

"

:

'