Dismissed

Sree Ram Prasad Vemulpalli v. the Election Commission of India

Andhra Pradesh HC2 May 2024WP/10463/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging the acceptance of a respondent's nomination. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as he did not raise objections, the matter was sub judice in a previous order, and Article 329(b) barred further judicial intervention.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sree Ram Prasad Vemulpalli Vs the Election… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 10463 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vemulpalli, S/o Raja Rao, R/o Plot No. 5 A 5'^ lane Land Mark Apartments, Brindhavan Gardens, Guntur, A.P-5226o7

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

Cornmission of India, Represented by its Chief Election

¶11

Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110001. Election Commission, Represented by its

¶12

Ch ef Electoral Officer, 1st Floor, 5th block. Secretariat buildings ^ Velagapudi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ^ ’

¶13

^ Andh^a'prade^h^*^ District Election Officer, Guntur,^{GunturDistrict,}

¶14

The Returning Officer, 94-Guntur West Assembly Constituency Gunturu, Andhra Pradesh. lucuy,

¶15

V'dadala Rajani, W/o Kumara Swamy, R/o House No. 9-2-147 Sai 522006 Pattabhipuram, Guntur,’A.P-

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the action of the respondents herein more particularly the 4'^ respondent herein in not considering the valid objections raised by the contesting candidate in Guntur west constituency herein against the nomination filed by^the5 respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and

¶18

¶19

contrary to the Representation of the peoples Act, 1951 in violation of Article 14, 21 and 324 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4’^ respondents to forthwith reject the nomination of the respondent.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents; SRI S.VIVEKCHANDRA SEKHAR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D.S.SIVADARSHAN

¶23

The Court made the following order:

¶24

APHC010209312024

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3233]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 10463/2024

¶32

Between:

¶33

Sree Ram Prasad Vemulpalli

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

The Election Commission Of India and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the^{learnedStanding} counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

¶45

This writ petition is filed questioning the action^{ofthe4“"respondentin} not considering the valid objections raised by the^{contestingcandidate} in Guntur West constituency against the nomination filed^{bythe5'^respondent.}

¶46

th The petitioner is not the person who raised the objections^againstthe5 respondent nomination and the said objector is not^{beforethiscourt.}

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another^contesting candidate in the same constituency raised the objections^butnot by^the petitioner. That contesting candidate gave representation^{tothe4'^respondent}

¶48

on 26.04.2024 raising the objections with respect to the^{nominationfiledby} the 5'^ respondent. That objection was answered by^{the4*^respondentvide} proceedings dated 26.04.2024 observing that after thorough^verification it is ordered that the objection mentioned in the petition is not correct under the purview of rejection of nomination and ECl guidelines.^{Accordingly,thesaid} objection was set aside and the nomination of the 5^^^{respondentisaccepted.}

¶49

for the 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel appearing respondent Election commission submits that this is a matter squarely covered by the order of this court in W.P.No. 10137^of2024.

¶50

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers^{tothedecisionof} the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 14 SCC 189^whichwasalso considered in the order of this Court in W.P.No. 10137^of2024.

¶51

In view of the decision rendered by this court in W.P.No.10137^of2024 dated 29.04.4024 and in view of the specific bar under^{Article329(b)ofthe} Constitution of India and enabling provisions under^{sections80and100ofthe}

¶52