IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6439 of 2009 Between: Prithipati Pulla Rao S/o. P. Subba Rao District Telugu Desam Party, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Election Commission, Andhra Pradesh, Budha Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector cum District Election Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Tahsildar cum Asst. Election Officer, Chilakaluripet, Guntur 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 will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 28.2.2009 of the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.V.PRABHAKARA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The petitioner, President, District Telugu Desam Party, Guntur, filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the action of the District Election Officer-cum-District Collector, Guntur, 2nd respondent herein, in not considering his representation dated 28.2.2009 with regard to change of various polling booths in villages of Chilakaluripet constituency. The averments of the petitioner are to the effect that he is concerned with 215 – Chilakaluripet Assembly Constituency as he is proposing to contest from the said constituency on behalf of Telugu Desam Party. He submitted a representation dated 28.2.2009 to the 2nd respondent requesting for shifting of 15 polling booths, the details of which are furnished in the affidavit. When the matter came up for admission on 26.3.2009, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents was directed to obtain instructions. Today, the learned counsel submitted that the election notification under Section 15(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was issued with regard to the first phase of polling, on 23.3.2009 and with regard to the second phase, on 28.3.2009. The election process has thus commenced and it would not be possible for the election authorities to entertain the request for shifting of polling booths. The same also involved modification of voters’ lists which is a cumbersome and time consuming process, which would interfere with and hinder the progress of the election. Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, stated that though the petitioner made a representation on 28.2.2009 the same was not considered, but a subsequent representation dated 18.3.2009 made by others was considered by the election authorities and several polling booths were shifted. A copy of the proceedings dated 23.3.2009 with regard to change of location of polling booths is produced before us in support of this contention. The learned counsel further submitted that it was not fair and proper on the part of the election authorities to not consider the earlier representation made by the petitioner while considering the subsequent representation dated 18.3.2009. Refuting the said arguments, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy submitted that the change of location of polling stations as per the list produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner included locations other than those mentioned in the two representations dated 28.2.2009 and 18.3.2009. This would show that the election authorities had acted independently and it is not a case of considering the subsequent representation overlooking the petitioner’s representation. In any event, we are of the opinion that once the election notification is issued under Section 15(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it is not open to this Court to interdict the election process in view of constitutional bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 31.3.2009 kpr