Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jonnakuti Aharonu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 November, 2021
Bench: A V Sai
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.25566 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl DATE ORDER Office
No. Note
01 03.11.2021 AVSS,J
W.P.No.25566 of 2021
Rule Nisi. Call for records.
Notice returnable in four weeks.
Post along with W.P.Nos.7570 and 24839
of 2021.
I.A.No.01 of 2021
Notification, bearing No.1765/SEC-
F2/2021, dated 01.11.2021, issued by the State
Election Commission-third respondent herein
notifying elections to Jaggaiahpeta Municipality-
fifth respondent herein, including Hamlet of
Chillakallu Gram Panchayat, is under challenge in
the present Writ Petition.
According to the petitioners, they are the
farmers and residents of Torraguntapalem,
Hamlet of Chillakallu Gram Panchayat which has
population of 4500 and around 2300 voters. It is
further stated that majority of the people of the
said Hamlet belong to SC, ST, BC and Minority
Communities. The Commissioner and Director,
Municipal Administration, Guntur-second
respondent herein issued a Memo bearing
No.1077996 (G)/2020, dated 27.01.2020,
proposing to merge the said Hamlet in
Jaggaiahpeta Municipality-fifth respondent herein
and also invited objections, if any, within ten
days.
According to the petitioners, they, along with
certain other villagers, submitted objections in the
W.P.No.25566 of 2021
month of November, 2020, stating that neither a
Grama Sabha was held, after the said proposal,
nor any Tom Tom was made regarding the
proposed merger nor prior notice was issued to
any of the members of the village or panchayat
and the Hamlet should be allowed to continue as
an integral part of Chillakallu Gram Panchayat.
It is also stated that, pursuant to the said
objections, the Gram Panchayat issued
proceedings in Roc.No.6/2017/A, dated
11.02.2020, asking the Extension Officer (PR &
RD), Jaggaiahpet to submit a report after
conducting enquiry.
According to the petitioners, without
considering the objections, filed by the petitioners
and other villagers, the State Government-first
respondent herein issued G.O.Ms.No.121 MA &
UD (G) Department, dated 05.03.2020, merging
the subject Hamlet in Jaggaiahpeta Municipality-
fifth respondent herein and also issued
G.O.Ms.No.596, on the even date de-notifying the
said Hamlet from Chillakallu Gram Panchayat.
Impugning the said action of merging the said
Hamlet in Jaggaiahpeta Municipality as being
contrary to Rules 3 and 13 of the
A.P.(Municipalities (Inclusion or Exclusion of
Areas into/from the jurisdiction of the
Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats) Rules, 2015 (for
brevity, 'the Rules'), petitioners and certain others
filed W.P.Nos.7570 and 24839 of 2021 and the
said Writ Petitions are pending consideration
before this Court.
It is contended by Sri N.Ashwani Kumar,
learned counsel for the petitioners, that the very
action of merging the Hamlet in the Municipality
is in contravention of the Rules in general and
Rules 3 and 13 in particular. It is also the
W.P.No.25566 of 2021
submission of the learned counsel that, as stated
by the respondents, the subject Hamlet is not
within 3 Kms radius as per Rule 3 (i) of the Rules
and it is also the submission of the learned
counsel that the respondents herein failed to
consider the objections as per Rule 13 of the
Rules. In support of his contentions and
submissions, learned counsel places reliance on
the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief
Election Commissioner1 and Election
Commission of India, through Secretary v.
Ashok Kumar and others2.
On the contrary, Sri B.S.Sivaji, learned
Government Pleader, attached to the office of the
learned Advocate General, appearing for R1 to
R4, Sri S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing
Counsel for State Election Commission and
Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
for Jaggaiahpeta Municipality-fifth respondent
herein, contend that, since the election process
has already commenced, by virtue of the
impugned notification, dated 01.11.2021, fixing
the schedule for holding the election, the present
Writ Petition cannot be maintained before this
Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, in view of the prohibition contained in
Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India and also
the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Anugrah Narain Singh and Others v.
State of U.P. and Others3 and also the judgment
of this Court in Manam Venkata Pranav Gopal
v. State of Andhra Pradesh4.
Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India
(1978) SCC 851
(2008) SCC 216
(1996) 6 SCC 303
2020 (2) ALT 417
W.P.No.25566 of 2021
reads as under:
Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution, --
(a) the validity of any law relating to the
delimitation of constituencies or the
allotment of seats to such constituencies,
made or purporting to be made under
Article 243ZA shall not be called in
question in any Court;
(b) no election to any Municipality shall
be called in question except by an
election petition presented to such
authority and in such manner as is
provided for by or under any law made
by the Legislature of a State".
In view of the prohibition contained in
Article 243 ZG of the Constitution of India and
the law laid down in the judgments referred to
supra and, since the first respondent herein
already issued election notification, fixing the
schedule, the relief sought in I.A.No.01 of 2021
cannot be maintained.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the
judgments on which the learned counsel for the
petitioners seeks to place reliance would not
render any assistance to him to substantiate
his contentions having regard to the law laid
down in Anugrah Narain Singh's case (third
supra) and paragraph No.32 (4) of the judgment
(second supra).
W.P.No.25566 of 2021
For the aforesaid reasons, this application
stands dismissed.
_________
AVSS,J
Tsy
