HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2235 of 2010 Date: 20.10.2011 Between: R.Raghuveera Reddy ..... Petitioner AND: The Chief Electoral Officer and E.O., Principal Secretary to Government, Hyderabad and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Raj Kumar For Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for General Administration Counsel for Respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner is a State Secretary of the Telugu Yuvatha. In the elections held to the Legislative Assembly in the year 2009, Smt V.Sunitha Laxma Reddy was elected from Narsapur Assembly Constituency. The petitioner alleged that in a group meeting held in CSI Church situated in Shanthiniketan School, Narsapur Town, on 10.04.2009, the elected candidate who was one of the contestants declared that she has already given Rs.1,00,000/- to the Christian community and she has also promised to pay further amounts for the developmental activities of the community. The petitioner further alleged that two leading daily newspapers published the said item and that, on a written complaint given by him, on 11.04.2009, to respondent No.3, notices were given to the contesting candidates by the latter and on consideration of the explanations by the contesting candidates, he has sent the complaint along with the explanations to respondent No.2. The petitioner was informed that respondent No.2 has submitted his report to respondent No.1 and that, respondent No.1 has so far not taken any action. At the hearing, it is not disputed that the only remedy available for an aggrieved party against any electoral malpractice is to file an Election Petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that respondent No.1 has no power or authority to take any action against the elected candidate. More over, there is a constitutional bar under Article-329 (b) of the Constitution of India for questioning the election of a returned candidate except by way of an Election Petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any such Petition to question the election of the returned candidate. No purpose will be served by directing respondent No.1 to take action on the report submitted by respondent No.2, in the absence of any power conferred on the former to proceed against the returned candidate. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.2990 and 3764 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th October 2011 DR