Dismissed

Vadde Krishna Murthy v. the State

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2020WP/4899/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the proposed removal of petitioners' names from the voters list. It held that petitioners deviated from the statutory procedure of the Representation of the People Act by approaching the court instead of filing objections within the granted period before the Authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; liberty granted to prefer an appeal.

Vadde Krishna Murthy Vs the State — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.4899 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of respondents in proposing to remove the names of the petitioners from voters list of Alebad village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District, declare the same as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, consequently direct respondents not to remove the names of the petitioners from voters list of Alebad village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶5

Admittedly, the writ petition is filed against the notice issued 20.01.2020 proposing to remove the names of the petitioners from the voters list, on a specific ground and granted time till 28.01.2020, but no objections were filed before the Authority. When a notice was issued, the petitioners are under obligation to submit their explanation as required under the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act. Instead of filing such objections or reply to the notice within the time permitted i.e. 7 days, the petitioners approached this Court, deviating statutory procedure prescribed under the Act and raised specific contention that sufficient time was not granted to submit their explanation. But the Statute prescribes only 7 days notice and the same was granted. Therefore, the allegation that sufficient time was not granted to the petitioners is neither true nor correct. However, if any order is passed, based on the notice, the petitioners if aggrieved by such order, may approach the Appellate Authority as prescribed under the provisions of the Act. The

¶6

¶7

¶8

Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , consequently the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to prefer an appeal, in accordance with law. There shall be no costs.

¶10

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶12

Dated 02.03.2020 Rvk

Vadde Krishna Murthy v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadde Krishna Murthy v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Keesaram Sambaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Bathaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Appala Naidu, Vs the Comissioner

Inturi Chandra Mohan Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Nammi Pedda Appalaswmy Vs the Tahsildar

K. Nallappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh