Dismissed

Mettu Rarni Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Apr 2021WP/7297/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an election petition challenging the acceptance of a nomination filed after schedule time. The court held that such writ petitions are not maintainable, and the exclusive remedy is to challenge the election result via an Election Petition after the declaration of results.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner directed to file Election Petition after election result declaration.

Mettu Rarni Reddy Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Writ Petition No.7297 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.M. Aishwarya, learned counsel representing Mr.S.Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission, for 2^nd respondent and Mr.Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for 7^th respondent.

¶4

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking declaration that the action of the 6^th respondent Returning Officer in receiving the nomination from the 7^th respondent after the schedule time, for the election of the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC) of Paalapadu Village, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District, as contrary to the Notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission, dated 07.03.200, and contrary to Section 201 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for the short, the “Act”) and Rules 8, 9 and 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006, (for short, the “Rules”), and consequently, to direct the 6^th respondent to reject the nomination filed by the 7^th respondent. 3) The petitioner has filed nomination to contest the election for the post of MPTC of Paalapadu village. The 7^th respondent also filed his nomination pursuant to the Notification, dated 07.03.2020, and contested the said election. The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that as per the Election Notification, the nomination has to be filed by 5.00 P.M. on 11.03.2020 being the last date for filing nominations and as such,

¶5

¶6

CMR, J. W.P.No.7297 of 2020

¶7

all the nominations of the contesting candidates shall be filed within the time prescribed in the Election Notification. However, the 7^th respondent has filed his nomination on 12.03.2020 beyond the time schedule prescribed for filing of the nomination. The 6^th respondent, who is the Returning Officer, instead of rejecting the said nomination, which was filed beyond the schedule time, had improperly accepted the said nomination of the 7^th respondent, which was filed beyond the prescribed time in the Election Notification. Therefore, the petitioner states that he has submitted a representation to the State Election Commission regarding the said improper acceptance of the said nomination of the 7^th respondent by the 6^th respondent Returning Officer. However, no action has been taken on his representation till now. Therefore, he sought the aforesaid reliefs in the Writ Petition.

¶8

Ms.M. Aishwarya, learned counsel representing Mr.S.Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission, for 2^nd respondent, would submit that when once the scrutiny of the nominations that were filed has been completed and publication of list of nominations has been made after the scrutiny, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file an Election Petition before the Election Tribunal after the election result is declared and he cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking rejection of the nomination that was already accepted by the Returning Officer. In support of her contention, she relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of

¶9

¶10

CMR, J. W.P.No.7297 of 2020

¶11

Kalla Ramakrishna v. State Election Commission¹ wherein this

¶12

Court held that High Court cannot exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition regarding improper rejection of nomination papers. It is held that the remedy is only by way of preferring an Election Petition in the Election Tribunal by the aggrieved person.

¶13

Learned counsel for the 7^th respondent Mr.Narra Srinivasa Rao, would also submit that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the only remedy of the petitioner against the said improper acceptance of the said nomination beyond schedule time is by way of preferring an Election Petition in the Election Tribunal after the election result is declared.

¶14

This Court finds considerable force in the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission and the learned counsel for the 7^th respondent. No doubt as can be seen from the Election Notification, dated 07.03.2020, the last date for filing nomination is by 5.00 P.M. on 11.03.2020. If any nomination is filed beyond the said time prescribed in the Election Notification, the Returning Officer has to reject the said nomination which was filed beyond the schedule time. However, for the reasons best known to the Returning Officer, the said nomination of the 7^th respondent was accepted according to the case of the petitioner beyond the schedule time. But, the said ground relating to improper 1 2004 (6) ALT 638 = 2004 (6) ALD 587

¶15

¶16

CMR, J. W.P.No.7297 of 2020

¶17

acceptance of nomination cannot confer any right on the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to seek a direction to the Returning Officer to reject the said nomination of the 7^th respondent. It is settled law that when once the election process has been commenced that the Courts would normally do not interfere with the election process. If any person who is contesting the election is aggrieved by any irregularity or illegality committed either by the Returning Officer or by any Officer concerned in conducting the election, the only remedy of the aggrieved person is by way of filing an Election Petition before the Election Tribunal as contemplated under the Act to challenge the said election. The said legal position has been succinctly dealt with by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kalla Ramakrishna¹ .

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Guntur, against the said improper acceptance of nomination by the 6^th respondent Returning Officer and the same is not disposed of.

¶19

However, as can be seen from the Election Notification, right to appeal to the District Collector is provided only against an improper rejection of nomination paper. Similarly, Rule 13 of the Rules also provides appeal only against the improper rejection of nomination. No appeal is provided either under the Election Notification or under the aforesaid Rules against improper acceptance of nomination. So, the appeal itself is not maintainable. Therefore, no direction can be given to the District

¶20

¶21

CMR, J. W.P.No.7297 of 2020

¶22

Collector, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the District Collector.

¶23

Therefore, in view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an Election Petition after the result of the election is declared, if he still feels aggrieved by the same. No costs.

¶24

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶25

_________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶26

Date:07-04-2021.

¶27

Mettu Rarni Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mettu Rarni Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yedlapati Vasundhara Devi Vs Sri. Vishal Gunni, (I.P.S)

Suddabattula Venkat Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.P.Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R S Raja Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vannepanta Venku Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Anne Sri Lakshmi Vs Greater Vijayawada Municipal Corporation