IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND SIX P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA * * * W.P.No. 10965 OF 2006 Between: N.Sekhar ..Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary (P.R.&R.D.), S a i f a b a d , Hyderabad and four others ..Respondents W.P.NO.10091 of 2006 Between: Nuthalapati Sambasiva Rao and another. ...Petitioner. And The Election Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others. ..Respondents. W.P.No. 10094 OF 2006 Between: 1. Kolluri Ankaiah and 30 others. .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others ..Respondents W.P.No. 10257 OF 2006 Between: Gonugunta Venkateswarlu and another ..Petitioners And State Election Commission, Andhra Pradesh, And others ..Respondents W.P.No. 10325 OF 2006 Between: Chagamreddy Narasa Reddy and another ..Petitioners And State Election Commission, Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Secunderabad and four others ..Respondents W. P. NO.10334/2006 Between: Akki Pulla Reddy and 7 others. .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Electoral Officer & Special Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four Others. .. Respondents W. P. NO.10385/2006 Between: Madhavarapu Sanjeeva Rao and another. .. Petitioners And The Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District and three others. .. Respondents W. P.NO.10386/2006 Between: Madhavarapu Venugopal Rao and another. .. Petitioners And The Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District and three others. .. Respondents W. P. NO.10387/2006 Between: Bonagiri Niranjan Gupta and another. .. Petitioners And The Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District and three others. .. Respondents W. P. NO.10436/2006 Between: Mamillapalli Mallikarjuna Rao and four others. .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others. .. Respondents W. P. NO.10446/2006 Between: Tippa Reddy Krishna Reddy and another. .. Petitioners And State Election Commission, Andhra Pradessh, represented by its Secretary, Secunderabad and four others .. Respondents W. P. NO.10452/2006 Between: Yerrabiki Venkat Rao and another. .. Petitioners And The Election Registration Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet, Guntur District and four others. .. Respondents W.P.No. 10554 OF 2006 Between: Sandu Vara Prasada and 26 others. .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Guntur and three others ..Respondents W. P. NO.10642/2006 Between: Akkineni Ravi and another. .. Petitioners And The State Election Commissioner, A.P. Hyderabad and 3 others. .. Respondents W. P. NO.10710 OF 2006 Between:- Kanchumati Tirupalu. .. Petitioner And The Chief Electoral Officer, General Administration (Elections) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, A.P. Hyderabad and four others ..Respondents W. P. No.10711 of 2006 Between:- Smt.Itham Aruna ..Petitioner And The Chief Electoral Officer, General Admn.(Elections) Dept. Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & Ors. ... Respondents W.P.NO.10712 of 2006 Between:- Sri Garikapati Narasimha Rao .. Petitioner And The Chief Electoral Officer, General Admn.(Elections) Department Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & Others. .. Respondents WP.NO.10715 of 2006 Between:- Palagirichiragari Yogeswara Reddy and another. ..Petitioners And The Chief Electoral Officer, General Admn (Elections) Department Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Others … Respondents W.P. No.10716 of 2006 Between:- Ch. Rama Brahmmam ..Petitioners And The Chief Electoral Officer, General Administration (Elections) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, A.P., Hyderabad & others. ..Respondents W.P. No.10790 of 2006 Between:- Anubrolu Ramakrishna & others ..Petitioners And The Dist5rict Collector and District Election Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole & others. ..Respondents W.P. No.10807 of 2006 Between:- K. Shankaraiah ..Petitioners And The Joint Secretary to Government, Government of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others. ..Respondents W.P. No.10962 of 2006 Between:- Shaik Masthanvali ..Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary (P.R & R.D.), Saifabad, Hyderabad & others. ..Respondents W.P. No.10967 of 2006 Between:- M. Veera Reddy ..Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary (P.R & R.D.), Saifabad, Hyderabad & others. ..Respondents W.P. No.10968 of 2006 Between:- G. Rameshbabu ..Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary (P.R & R.D.), Saifabad, Hyderabad & others. ..Respondents W.P. No.10969 of 2006 Between:- K. Raghavaiah ..Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary (P.R & R.D.), Saifabad, Hyderabad &others. ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.Nos. 10965, 10091, 10094,10257, 10325, 10334, 10385,10386, 10387, 10436, 10446, 10452, 10554, 10642, 10710,10711,10712,10715,10716,10790,10807, 10962, 10967,10968 and10969 of 2006 COMMON ORDER:- INTRODUCTION: 1. Indian democracy despite the constitutional measures, the other legislative measures and the reforms, suffers from several ills. The A p e x Court on several occasions had cautioned the constitutional functionaries and other wings in this regard. It is needless to say that these instances being too numerous, this court is not inclined to elaborate the same. Be that as it may, the democratic features as basic features had been well emphasized in A.K.Gopalan Vs. The State of Madras[1], Keshavananda Bharathi Sripadagalvaru Vs. state of Kerala[2], and also in Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms[3]. In Union of India Vs. Naveen Jindal[4] the Apex Court observed that the beauty of the Indian Constitution is that the entire structure of the country is based thereupon. It is the very pillar upon which the democracy of India stands. In Dattreya and others Vs. Mahaveer and others[5] it was observed that fair play is the basic principle seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Thigarajan and others Vs. Sri Venugopalswamy B. Koil and others[6] it was observed that it is the obligation of the courts of law to further clear intendment of the legislation and not to frustrate it by excluding the same. These batch of writ petitions were filed prior to the Election Notification dated 10-06-2006 questioning the validity of the voters list on different grounds, statutory like the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’), the G.O.Ms.No. 254, the supersession thereof and also the several constitutional provisions governing the field in this regard and further pointing out the constitutional or the statutory vacuum created, serious gap even in subordinate Legislation, in relation to the drawing up of the voters list and how the gross root democracy is ultimately affected by virtue of the same. SHORT BACKGROUND OF THESE LITIGATIONS: 2. As already referred to supra, these writ petitions were filed prior to the issuance of election notification aforesaid but however, these are being disposed of subsequent to the issuance of the notification. At the out set it may be stated that several other writ petitions inclusive of these writ petitions came up before the learned single judge and in the said batch on 01-06-2006 the learned single Judge had made the following order while posting the writ petitions for admission on 19-06-2006. “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the following directions are given: I. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj shall undertake an exhaustive review on the reorganization of MPTCs in various Mandals in the State and take necessary steps to ensure that: a) Whether the number of MPTCs in a Mandal remains unaltered, the existing set up is not disturbed. b) Whether the number of MPTCs in a Mandal has increased on account of rise in population, the reorganization of the MPTCs must be such that the MPTCs where the highest growth of population has been recorded are reorganized; and the others are not touched. c) No village which is not contiguous to other villages in an MPTC are allotted or attached to it, i.e. Territorial contiguity must be ensured; and d) Perfect balance is mentioned as regards the number of villages in each MPTC in the Mandal. If such exercise warrants any rearrangement or reorganization of MPTCs., it shall be open to the Commissioner to issue necessary directions before the election notification is issued. The complaints and representations received in this regard shall be taken into account. Necessary instructions shall also be issued to the District Collectors. The State Election Commissioner shall issue necessary directions to the District Collectors as well as the Electoral Registration Officers in the State. a) to ensure that the sanctity of the voters’ list published in February,2006 is maintained in the mater of utilizing the same for the Panchayat Raj Elections: b) to ascertain whether the deletion or addition of names subsequent to the publication of the list in February,2006, is preceded by necessary exercise contemplated under Sections 21 and 22 of the R.P. Act, by undertaking proper verification: c) to bestow specific attention to situations where large scale additions and deletions of voters has taken place in the list published under Rule 5 of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Preparation and Publication of Electoral Rolls) Rules,2000, contained in G.O.M.No.254 ,dated 04-08-2000. It shall be open to the aggrieved individuals as well as the public representatives to bring the instances of deletions and inclusions to the notice of the concerned Electoral Registration Officers, who in turn shall undertake proper exercise before a final list is published under Rule 6. The exercises indicated above shall be undertaken expeditiously and completed before the Election Notification is issued.” 3. These matters were carried by way of writ appeals, writ appeal No. 568 of 2006 and batch and the learned Division Bench by order dated 9-6-2006 made the following Order:- “Hence, the appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside. In order to facilitate early consideration of the prayer of the writ petitioners, we direct that- 1) the respondents in the writ petition should file counter-affidavits latest by 13-6-2006 after supplying advanced copies to the counsel for the petitioners. 2) The petitioners shall be free to file rejoinder affidavits, if any, on or before 15-6-2006. 3) All the writ petitions be listed before the Single Bench on 16-6-2006. 4) The Single Bench shall be free to hear the arguments on the main petitions and decide the same. 5) The petitioners shall also be at liberty to make a request for adjudication for their prayer for stay. 6) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the order passed in thee appeals shall not operate as an impediment in the consideration of the writ petitioners’ prayer for stay. At the same time, we make it clear that the respondents shall be free to take all legally permissible objections to the grant of interim relief. While disposing of the appeals in the manner indicated above, we deem it proper to recapitulate the statement of the learned Advocate General that all those who have filed objections against the wrongful deletion of their names from the voters list and have succeeded in persuading the competent authority to accept their plea, shall be entitled to cast their vote in the forthcoming election irrespective of the fact that their names are not reflected in the electoral roll. However, it is made clear that this direction would be operative qua the orders passed till the date of notification of election and not thereafter. On the oral request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we clarify that the election, if any, held before the final adjudication of the writ petitions would be subject to the result of the writ petitions.” 4. Suffice it to state at this stage that the Division Bench was concerned with the way the matters were disposed of by making a common order by the learned single Judge without appreciating the factual matrix in every case. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench also while disposing of these matters made certain other observations relating to the other aspects incidentally which are being argued in elaboration before this court inasmuch as with the above directions, the matters were sent back to this court for the purpose of fresh disposal. 5. All these matters are coming up before this court at the stage of admission. At the out set it may be stated that as directed by the Division Bench in almost all these matters counter affidavits had been filed. As can be seen from the material available on record, in certain of the matters the concerned M.R.Os though not impleaded as parties the non-parties had sworn to the counter affidavits, may for the reason that the facts are within the knowledge of those concerned Mandal Revenue Offices. In some of the maters the Mandal Revenue Officers also are made as parties . In certain matters, the concerned Joint Secretary had sworn to the counter affidavits. On careful scrutiny of the counter affidavits filed in almost in all these matters, substantially the stand taken by the Government appears to be one and the same, though on facts certain different explanations were given by the concerned officers who had sworn to these counter affidavits, the details of the same would be dealt with at the appropriate stage. This exercise is being taken by this court especially in the light of the directions made by the Division Bench inasmuch as each matter to be looked into and to be decided on facts. The respective pleadings of the parties and the contentions are as hereunder: PLEADINGS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES: W.P.NO. 10965 OF 2006 6. Initially the writ petition was filed praying for relief of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deleting the names of the valid voters and refusing to include the eligible voters while refusing to exclude the ineligible voters from the voters list of Nadendla Gram Panchayat prepared by the authorities and not passing any orders on the appeals preferred by the affected parties by the concerned authorities as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory thereby violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act,1994 and the Rules made thereunder particularly the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.254 dated 4-8-2000 and consequentially direct the respondents to include the eligible voters and exclude the ineligible voters from the voters list of Nadendla Gram Panchayat before issuing the election notification and pass such other suitable orders. 7. W.P.M.P.No.14946 of 2006 was filed praying for amendment of the prayer as hereunder: “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in deleting the names of the valid voters and refusing to include the eligible voters, while refusing to exclude the ineligible voters from the voters list of Nadendla Gram Panchayat and the consequential notification issued on 10/6/2006 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory thereby violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of Article 243K of the Constitution of India and Sections 11,12 and 201 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and further declare that the electoral rolls prepared under the said Rules as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Act and void ab initio, if necessary declare Rules 2 and 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Preparation and Publication of Electoral Rolls) Rules,2000 issued in G.O.Ms.No.254 dated 4/8/2000 as unconstitutional for violating the constitutional mandate contained in Article 243 K and Sections 11,12 and 201 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act and consequentially direct the respondents to prepare fresh electoral rolls for holding Panchayat elections in accordance with the Constitution of India and the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act,1994 and held elections only after that exercise is completed and pas such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 8. This application wherein the amendment was prayed for is resisted by the State Election Commission and also by the Government by filing respective counter affidavits. The chronology of events in short already had been narrated supra. It is not in controversy that all these writ petitions were filed prior to issuance of the notification and in fact in several of the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions, specific stand had been taken that there is likelihood of issuance of the notification and hence early disposal of the matters would be essential. It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench made the order on 9-6-2006 and the election notification was issued on 10-6-2006. The facts in detail had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of WPMP No. 14964 of 2006. This court is of the considered opinion that in the light of the submissions which had been advanced at length by the counsel on record, even in the absence of the prayer, these aspects may have to be gone into by this court. In the light of the same, inasmuch as the parties on record are not taken by surprise at all, the amendment which is prayed for, may have to be allowed and accordingly W.P.M.P. No. 14946 of 2006 is hereby ordered. Inasmuch as all these matters are coming up for admission and counter affidavits had been filed, by the respective parties, elaborate submissions were made by all the counsel on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitions can be finally disposed of. Accordingly in all these writ petitions Rule Nisi is issued. 9. The petitioner in the writ petition No.10965 of 2006 had pleaded that he belongs to Nadendla Gram Panchayat and his name is in the voters list of Nadendla Gram Panchayat and he belongs to Telugu Desam Party and he is contesting as a ward member in the forthcoming elections of the Gram Panchayat. It was further pleaded that the respondent authorities issued the voters list while deleting the eligible voters, included ineligible voters and also refusing to include the eligible voters. It is stated that in view of the same, his chance of the success in the forthcoming election to the Gram Panchayat had been taken away by the respondent authorities. The petitioner also had given particulars stating that the respondent authorities in the month of January,2006 published the voters list of the Gram Panchayat while deleting 508 names of the eligible voters and they have also included roughly about 350 new voters for which the concerned authorities asked the residents of the Gram Panchayat to submit the objections if any. Accordingly, he field objections. However, the respondent authorities did not consider the same and published the final voters list on 15/5/2006. It was also pleaded that the respondent authorities had deleted 269 names of valid voters from the list without assigning any reasons whatsoever and the particulars or the details relating to the same also had been narrated. Apart from these factual aspects, the provision of the Act aforesaid and also the concerned Rules in G.O.Ms.Nos.255 and 899 also had been referred to. Further an affidavit in detail narrating several other factual details and other irregularities and illegalities in relation to exclusion, inclusion and deletion etc., of the voters had been filed in W.P.M.P.No.14946 of 2006. No doubt, this is subsequent affidavit, which had been filed while praying for the amendment of the prayer. Initially counter affidavits were filed denying the stand taken by the writ petitioner and also subsequent thereto counter affidavits were filed. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Election Commission several of the aspects justifying the stand taken by the State Election Commission had been elaborated and narrated and same would be dealt with at the proper stage since virtually these contentions made being common in almost in all the writ petitions. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandendla who is a non-party to the writ petition, it was pleaded at Paragraph No. 2 that the Election Commission of India issued a direction relating to Electoral Rolls for the summary revision for the year 2006. The programme is detailed below: - S.No. Stage of Revision Period 1. Preparatory work-removal of discrepancies Upto 1-11-2005 If any, found during validation checks of the Existing database and integration and consoli- dation of all the supplements of electoral rolls. 2. Draft publication of rolls 1.11.2005(Saturday) 3. Period of for filing of claims and objections. 5.11.2005 to 5.12.2005 due to 4.12.2005 is public holiday 4. Special campaign dates for receiving claims 12.11.2005 ,13.11.2005 and objections at all designated locations. 26.11.2005 & 27.11.2005 5. Disposal of claims and objections 9.1.2006 6. Preparation and printing of supplement of 6.2.2006 Addition, deletions & corrections 7. Final publication of Electoral Rolls 13.2.2006 As per the programme, the claims and objections in form Nos. 6,7 and 8 were received from 5.11.2005 to 1.12.2005 from 10.30 A.M. to 5.00 P.M., on 4.12.2005 though it was a public holiday, and also prefer on 5-12-2005. All the claims and objections have to be disposed off on 9-1-2006. The final publication of Electoral rolls has to be published on 13-2-2006.” 11. In the counter affidavit Rule 20 and 23 of the Registration of Electoral Rules 1960 made under the R.P. Act had also been referred. It was further pleaded at Para 5 that :- “ In fact they were got verified following the norms. Out of 848 claims for inclusions (Form 6) 242 were accepted and the remaining 606 were rejected. So also out of 1259 Form 7 claims for deletions, 250 were accepted and the remaining 1009 were rejected. Thus final orders on the total applications claims received for conclusion and deletion in the Electoral Rolls were passed and finally published on 25.2.2006 as per the schedule ordered. Therefore, the allegation leveled against respondents are not true.” 12. It was further pleaded that after final publication of draft rolls on 25.2.2006 the writ petitioner filed appeals before the Collector, Guntur (i.e.,) District Election Authority in respect of inclusions and deletions and as a matter of fact, during the process of summary revision of Electoral Rolls pertaining to Nadendla Gram Panchayat, 848 claims for inclusion in Form No.6 and 1259 in Form No.7 for deletion were received. It was further pleaded that questioning the order of deletion passed by the Electoral Registration Officer in Form 7 appeals were filed. The relevant portion reads as hereunder:- “ a total number of 250 appeals have been filed before the District Election Authority and apart from this other 20 applications were also filed. So all together a total of 270 (250 + 20) appeals were filed and it is further submitted that there is no appeal filed against the orders passed in Form 6. The appellant were issued notices on their appeals and 6 senior officers were deputed for enquiry. Based on their enquiry after due service of notices, the appeals were disposed by an individual order on each appeal. Out of 270 appeals filed for inclusion 71 are allowed and 199 were rejected.” 13. It was also further pleaded that however, in cases wherein fresh cases filed before the appellate authority, endorsements were issued to the concerned to file before the electoral registration officer under continuous updation process pursuant to which the petitioner has field 203 Form 6 applications under continuous updation before the Electoral Registration Officer. Out of said 203 claims, 43 were accepted and 160 were rejected. On account of this (71 appeals + 43 continuous updation ) 114 claims accepted for inclusions. Supplement list of inclusions was got printed and sent to the District Panchayat Officer for being annexed to the concerned electoral rolls. It was also further pleaded that the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are not true and correct and the authorities had followed the procedure and the voters list prepared in accordance with law and hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. W.P.No.10091 of 2006 14. The petitioners filed the present writ petition praying for the relief of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the objections dated 11- 05-2006 raised by the petitioners with regard to the voters list of Gollapudi Gram Panchayat, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District, published on 08-05-2006 as illegal and void and pass such other suitable