Sunkara Veera mani, v. The Andhra Pradesh State of Election Commission

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Nov 2021WP/24831/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition challenging the failure to announce election results due to alleged termite damage to ballot papers, the High Court directed the State Election Commission to verify a representation within three days and pass appropriate orders in strict accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

writ petition disposed with direction to 1st respondent to verify representation dated 23.09.2021 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within 3 days.

Sunkara Veera mani, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State of… — Election Law | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24831 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Challenging the action of the respondents in not announcing Pulimeru MPTC election results by considering the representations submitted by the petitioner to 1^st respondent on 21.9.2021 and 23.9.2021, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶5

According to the petitioner, she contested for Pulimeru Mandal Praja Parishad Territorial Constituency Member, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. As per the schedule fixed by the Election Commission, election was conducted on 08.04.2021 and the date of counting of votes and declaration of result was fixed as 10.04.2021. It is stated that MPTC and ZPTC elections were conducted on 08.04.2021, but there was delay in counting of votes and declaration of results in view of the orders passed by this Court. 1^st respondent herein issued a Notification dated 16.09.2021, fixing the date of counting of votes as 19.09.2021 after the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, setting aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge. As mentioned supra, the poll was conducted on 08.04.2021 and 3 polling stations were arranged for the said constituency and the ballot papers/votes of each polling booth were kept in separate ballot boxes. It is further stated that at the time of

¶6

¶7

counting, the agents of the petitioner as well as the other party, were present in the counting hall on 19.09.2021. It is also averred that the Returning Officer, while taking out ballot papers from the boxes, found a few damaged votes due to termite bites in the boxes containing votes of polling station No.25. It is also stated that the Returning Officer, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer present in the counting hall, had taken out about 50 ballot papers, which were affected by termite, but they were clear and only a small termite bites on the border of ballot papers were found. It is also stated that the rest of the ballot papers were found undamaged. It is further stated that despite the same, the authorities kept aside the undamaged votes also. According to the petitioner, she got 100 votes majority, but the authorities did not announce the result on 19.09.2021.

¶8

It is further stated that the irregularities occurred during the process of counting were brought to the notice of 1^st respondent by the petitioner by way of representation dated 23.09.2021.

¶9

Today, during the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court that considering the representation made by the petitioner on 23.09.2021, a Notification came to be issued on 01.11.2021 proposing to

¶10

¶11

hold re-poll only in respect of polling station No.25, but, later, by way of Notification dated 03.11.2021, a fresh polling has been ordered for the MPTC. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the representation dated 23.09.2021 made by the petitioner, no orders have so far been communicated to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this action on the part of the respondent-authorities is contrary to Section 225D of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj At, 1994 and Rule 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006.

¶12

On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar, S., learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, that if any such representation is pending consideration before the State Election Commission as on today, necessary action would be taken in accordance with law.

¶13

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to 1^st respondent to verify the representation dated 23.09.2021 said to have been submitted by the petitioner herein and take appropriate action/ pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, if no orders are passed so far, within a period of 3 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

¶15

There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.

¶16

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶18

09.11.2021 DRK

¶19

Issue CC by 10.11.2021 BO DRK

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.24831 of 2021

¶23

09.11.2021

¶24

DRK

Sunkara Veera mani, v. The Andhra Pradesh State of Election Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunkara Veera mani, v. The Andhra Pradesh State of Election Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Stonecart Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tiyyali Shekar Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chiranjeevi Reddy Institute of Engineering and Technology, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Mastan Vali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Battina Ganesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Annapareddy Srinivasa Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh