IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8232 of 2009 Between: Gosetti Venkata Ramanaiah S/o. Bala Kondaiah R/o. Sri Nagar Village, Maidukur Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Election Commission of India (ECI) Reptd. by its Secretary New Delhi. 2 The State Election Commission (SEC) of Andhra Pradesh Reptd. by its Secretary Hyderabad. 3 The Returning Officer Maidukur Assembly Constituency No.252, Maidukur, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of 'Mandamus' declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not providing security to the petitioner and also permitting the petitioner for appointing the election agent and poling agents for the election to be conducted on 23-4-2009 for the Maidukur Constituency No.252 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to allot security and all other facilities such as appointment of Election agent and poling agents for the Assembly Elections to be conducted on 23-4-2009 as provided under the provisions of Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 of Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 and grant pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SRIKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8232 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) It is the case of the petitioner that he is a contesting candidate of Maidukur Assembly Constituency No.252 of Janata Dal (United). It is stated that he has made a representation to the 3rd respondent, the Returning Officer, seeking necessary security and other facilities, but the 3rd respondent has not considered the said representation. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled to appoint an election agent/polling agent and it is the duty of the police concerned to provide necessary police protection. We have perused the material papers. The so called representation said to have been made to the Returning Officer does not contain any date or proof of any acknowledgement. Under the relevant Rules, the petitioner has to appoint the election agent/polling agent in the prescribed form. Insofar as the appointment of the election agent/polling agent is concerned, it is for the petitioner to give a list of the persons in the prescribed form. Without furnishing any particulars with regard to the steps taken by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. If any irregularities have been committed by the 3rd respondent, it is always open to the petitioner to make a representation/complaint before the District Election Officer as well as the Chief Electoral Officer of the State. In the absence of any steps taken by the petitioner, we are unable to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is not permitting the petitioner to appoint the election agent/polling agent. We do not see any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for appointment of the election agent/polling agent and also make necessary representation before the police concerned seeking required protection. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date : 21-04-2009 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}