THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.A.No.1407 of 2009 Date of Judgment: 05-12-2009 Between: 1.Sri Shaik Kasim and others. ..Appellants and 1. The State Election Commission, rep. by its Secretary Budhabhavan, Tankbund, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents. The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.A.No.1407 of 2009 Judgment: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge dated 17-11-2009 dismissing the W.P.No.22014 of 2009 filed against the show cause notice dated 09-10-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause why they should not be declared that they ceased to be the Councillors for violating the whip. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants relying upon the counter averments of the 2nd respondent made in paragraph-5 contends that the fact of appointing the 3rd respondent as whip of the Indian National Congress, and his personal visit to serve the whip, receipt of 8 members and refused by 12 members; the 3rd respondent sending whip by courier to 12 members including the petitioners; it was served on all the petitioners and all the 12 petitioners are voted for Sriram Subba Rao, who is a TDP candidate, and violated the whip issued by the 3rd respondent are not borne out from the compliant lodged by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent to declare them ceased to be the Councillors of the Jaggayyapeta Municipality. Therefore, the 2nd respondent, who is speaking on behalf of 3rd respondent, is biased against the appellants/petitioners and determined to disqualify them as ward members for violating the whip issued by the 3rd respondent. 3. As per the minutes of the meeting dated 30-09-2009 of Jaggayyapeta Municipality for election of Chairperson, it is clear that whip was issued to all the ward members who were elected on the ticket of Indian National Congress; the copies of the Whip, particulars of the person who was appointed as whip and the contents of the whip were served to the Presiding Officer on 29-09-2009 at 1.15 P.M. which clearly discloses that when the whip personally tried to serve the copy of the whip on the members of the Congress Party, 12 members refused to receive the same; then the copy of the same was sent to the said members by courier, which was returned with an endorsement that the doors are locked; therefore, the copies of the same were affixed on their houses and photographs to that effect were also taken; the neighbours witnessed the same and the copies of the same were also served on the Presiding Officer on 30-09-2009 at 10.32 A.M. 4. In view of the same, the facts, which were spoken to by the 2nd respondent in para-5 of the counter, are based upon the records. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the 2nd respondent is biased against the appellants/petitioners and determined to disqualify them. Therefore, the learned single Judge rightly has not entertained the writ petition, as the same is filed against the issuance of show cause notice, in the absence of any specific allegation against the 2nd respondent that he had any personal interest or bias against the appellants/petitioners. 5. In view of the same, we do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the petitioners made a representation to the 2nd respondent to furnish the documents, namely, copy of the notification appointing the 3rd respondent as whip and the representation made by him (3rd respondent) about the steps taken for service of notice/whip on the appellants/petitioners, sending it through courier and its affixture on the doors. But the same has not been furnished so far. Therefore, the appellants/petitioners are handicapped to submit their explanation to the 2nd respondent. 7. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to furnish the information sought by the appellants/petitioners in their letter dated 23-11-2009 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on supplying the same within one week thereafter petitioners shall submit their explanation to the 2nd respondent and on receipt of such explanation, the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders within two weeks thereafter uninfluenced by any of the observation made by this Court while deciding the Writ Petition or Writ Appeal. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ___________ K.C.BHANU,J 05-12-2009 Murthy