IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.769 of 2008 Between: Maloth Harya S/o.Kokya R/o.Kallepalli (v) Damarcherla (M), Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Election Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 2 The Tahsildar, Mandal REvenue Officer, Damarcherla (M), Nalgonda District. 3 The District Collector, Nalgonda District. 4 Maloth Saida S/o.Pulya R/o.Kallepalli, Damarcherla (M), Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue any writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal action of the Respondent No.1 to 3 allowing to participate for getting elected as Chairman of 25-Kallepalli Water Users Association which is illegal arbitrary, and violation of Section 14 3(e) as the 4th respondent is a contractor Class 2 and subsisting contract which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to allow the 4th respondent as Chairman of the Association No.25, Kallepalli Water Users Association, Damarcherla (M), Nalgonda District by setting aside his appointment as a Chairman of the Association in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOONA REDDY ANJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.769 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is statedly a member of 25-Water User Association (WUA), Kallepalli Village of Damarcherla Mandal in Nalgonda District. It is his case that Election for Territorial Members was held on 09.01.2008 and fourth respondent was elected as Territorial Constituency Member. The petitioner alleges that fourth respondent is not eligible as he is a registered contractor. It appears, fourth respondent filed his nomination for being elected as Chairman of Managing Committee of WUA, Kallepalli. Therefore, petitioner filed the present writ petition alleging that when he made an attempt to approach the respondents and submit representation, they refused to accept the said representation. In this writ petition he seeks a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to allow the fourth respondent as Chairman of WUA, Kallepalli. This Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader is of considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable. A similar question was considered by this Court in Manga Ram Murthy v District Collector, Warangal[1], wherein after making reference to various provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997, the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems (Delineation and Formation of Water Users Association) Rules, 2003, and the Andhra Pradesh Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2003, which regulate the delineation of constituencies, preparation of voters list and conduct of elections, and decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court in N.P.Ponnuswami v Returning Officer[2], Meghraj v Delimitation Commission[3], P.Mastanaiah v Delimitation Commissioner, New Delhi[4], Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti, Jabalpur v State of U.P[5], State of U.P v Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti[6], Lakshmi Charan Sen v A.K.M.Hassan Uzzaman[7], Gujarat University v N.U.Rajguru[8], Anugrah Narain Singh v State of U.P[9], C.Subrahmanyam v K.Ramanjaneyulu[10], the principles governing the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in election matters were summarized as under. (i) If the election law creates rights and provides for enforcement by a Special Tribunal ordinarily, a writ petition cannot be maintained questioning election process including preparation of voters’ list. (ii) When an election dispute is considered, it must be kept in mind that the right to vote, contest or dispute the election is neither fundamental right nor a common law right, but is a right regulated by statutory provisions. It is therefore, not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by passing the machinery designated by the relevant act. Ordinarily, the remedy provided by the Statute must be followed before the authority designated therein; (iii) When the election process is set in motion by issuing election notification, all the disputes including illegalities, irregularities and improprieties allegedly committed by the election authorities in preparing the voters list, conducting elections, counting votes, etc., should be brought before a Special Tribunal by means of an election petition and writ petition is not proper remedy; (iv) In exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court cannot ordinarily interfere in election matters whatever be the illegality alleged when once the election process is commenced by issuing a direction to include the names of certain voters, delete certain voters and/or undertake the exercise of preparation of voters list afresh; (v) Even if the claims and objections by prospective voters are not finally disposed of and even if the objections are justified as to the allegations and contraventions of law, still the election process cannot be arrested. The elections must be allowed to go on on the basis of electoral list which is in force on the date of making nominations; (vi) Even if there, is non – compliance with the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made under the Act, the dispute has to be brought before the duly constituted Election Tribunal. Even in such an event, the Election Tribunal can interfere with the result of the election only when it materially affects the result of the returned candidate. In view of the above, the writ petition is misconceived, and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20.11.2008 vs To 1 The Deputy Election Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 2 The Tahsildar, Mandal REvenue Officer, Damarcherla (M), Nalgonda District. 3 The District Collector, Nalgonda District. 4 2CCs to G.P For Irrigation and Command Area Development, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} [1] 2004 (1) ALD 181 [2] AIR 1952 SC 64 [3] AIR 1967 SC 669 [4] AIR 1969 AP 1 [5] AIR 1985 All.162 [6] 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 305 = AIR 1995 SC 1512 [7] AIR 1985 SC 1233 [8] AIR 1988 SC 66 [9] (1996) 6 SCC 303 [10] (1998) 8 SCC 703