Dismissed

Chandika v. Panduranga Rao, v The Election Commission of India

Telangana HC19 Feb 2013WP/4910/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court discharged jurisdiction in W.P. challenging rejection of nomination for Legislative Council election. Court held interference is limited; remedy lies in Election Petition. Dismissed contention regarding late submission of electoral roll and mismatched proposer particulars.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petition disposed of.

Chandika v Panduranga Rao, Vs The Election Commission of India — Election Law | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4910 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

A notification was issued by the Election Commission of India-the 1^st respondent herein, on 23-01-2013 indicating the programme for conducting elections to the vacant seats of Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh. Krishna-Guntur Graduates’ Constituency is one such. 04-02-2013 is the date stipulated for submission of nominations.

¶4

The petitioner submitted his nomination on 04-022013. However, he did not enclose the extract of electoral roll in which his name figures. The check list issued to the petitioner by the Returning Officer, Krishna, the 3^rd respondent herein, indicated that the extract of electoral roll can be filed up to the time of scrutiny. 05-02-2013 is prescribed as the date of scrutiny. The petitioner contends that when he appeared before the 3^rd respondent, together with the electoral roll, he was informed that the scrutiny has started at 11.00 a.m., and any documents submitted thereafter would not be accepted. Ultimately, the 3^rd respondent rejected the nomination of the petitioner, through proceedings, dated 05.02.2013. Two reasons were mentioned, namely that the petitioner failed to file the copy of electoral roll and that the serial number and other particulars of the proposers of the petitioner are not tallying. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the rejection of the

¶5

nomination.

¶6

Heard Smt.N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. Avinash Desai, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶7

The interference by the High Court in the matters pertaining to elections to the Legislatures of the State or Centre is very very limited. If anyone feels aggrieved by the rejection of nomination or the acceptance of the nomination of another, the remedy is to file an Election Petition after the results of the elections are declared.

¶8

In the instant case, the petitioner did not enclose the copy of Electoral roll, which contains his name along with his nomination. It may be true that the facility was created to submit such electoral roll before scrutiny. Even that opportunity was not availed by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent with the list after commencement of the scrutiny.

¶9

Another important reason mentioned by the 3^rd respondent is that the particulars of the proposers of the petitioner did not tally. Except making an assertion, the petitioner is not able to demonstrate that the particulars of the persons, who figured as proposers in the nominations, have tallied with those in the relevant electoral roll. When such is a

¶10

controversy, the possibility for this Court to intervene does not exist.

¶11

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

¶12

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.

¶13

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:19.02.2013

¶14

Rds/kdl

Chandika v. Panduranga Rao, v The Election Commission of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandika v. Panduranga Rao, v The Election Commission of India

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

Methuku Ravindranath Vs Sure Krishnamurthy

G.Mujeeb Husain Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Hav. J. Srinivasulu, Vs The Director of Sainik Welfare

Poojari Mallesh, Vs The Secretary

S. Shivarajamma, Vs Sri Kishore

Coromandel Mining and Exports Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh