Heard Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 3467 AP

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                         &
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                Writ Appeal No. 712 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (per Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)

     Heard Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. Although serious issues are raised about the impugned

order dated 20.04.2023, the fact remains that after the order

was passed by the learned Single Judge, the present

appellant did not question the said order and participated in

the trial before the Tribunal. Today an issue is raised that no

notice was served on the appellant before the impugned order

was passed. After being aware of the order passed, the trial

has commenced in the Election O.P. before respondent No.8-

Tribunal. The present appellant participated and cross

examined the witnesses. For the petitioner before Tribunal

one witness was examined and the respondents including the

present appellant have examined 5 witnesses. The matter is

now coming for arguments.

3. Learned Senior Counsel raises an objection about the

impugned order passed dated 20.04.2023 by stating that

without giving notice to the respondent, the final order was

passed. He also points out contrary to the Election Petition

filed in the Tribunal, the petitioner No.2 has joined the writ

petition. In the opinion of this Court, if the present appellant

was aggrieved in any way by the order passed by the learned

single Judge, he should have questioned the same

immediately. On the contrary, he had participated in the trial

and has also examined one of its officers as a witness.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent No.1

submits that without any objection being recorded or filed,

the present appellant has participated in the trial.

5. This Court also notices that the impugned order merely

directed the Tribunal to dispose of the Election Petition

within a period of twelve (12) weeks. No other direction

touching the merits of the matter was given. As stated earlier

after this order was passed, the writ petitioner participated in

the trial and the only grievance seems to be the matter was

posted today for arguments and period fixed by the learned

single judge is expired today.

6. In the opinion of this Court, if the appellant was

dissatisfied with the time frame fixed or the manner in which

the order was passed, he should not have participated

unconditionally in the trial and allowed into progress. If he

was of the opinion the time fixed was too short, he should

have followed his remedies under law.

7. This Court in the circumstances of the case is unable to

extend the time that is sought for in the appellant

jurisdiction. It is always open to the writ petitioner to

convince the Tribunal to dispose of the matter at earliest. The

learned senior counsel submits that his clients through their

counsel are willing to advance the arguments today itself.

8. Noting the same, this Court opines that no further

orders are needed to be passed. This Writ Appeal is not the

proper method to seek extension. The matter is left open to

the Tribunal to decide on its own merits. Therefore, Writ

Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Both the

learned counsel are permitted to make a mention of this

order to the learned Judge presiding over the Tribunal. No

costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending

shall also stand dismissed.

________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

_______________________________________ JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

Date: 14.07.2023 Note: CC today B/o.

AG

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

Writ Appeal No.712 of 2023

Dated: 14.07.2023 AG