HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO.13973 OF 2006 Between: Sakamuru Srinivasa Rao ..... Petitioner AND A.P. State Election Commission, Rep. by its Commissioner, Secunderabad & others. .....Respondents :: O R D E R:: Counsel for the Petitioner : Shri M. Venkatanarayana Counsel for Respondent No. 1 : Shri V.V. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Revenue Dated: 27.07.2006 Per G.S.Singhvi, CJ On 25.07.2006, a batch of 58 cases, including this petition, was listed before the Court. At the commencement of hearing, Shri V.V.Prabhakar Rao, Advocate representing Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission made a statement that the common prayer made in all the petitions is for issue of a direction to the respondents to decide the applications made by the petitioners for inclusion of their names in the voters’ list and that the concerned authorities will deal with and decide such applications within a period of 48 hours, which shall be communicated to the applicants. In view of the statement of Shri V.V.Prabhakar Rao, all the petitions were disposed of by a common order, which was dictated in the open Court. In the evening, the Court Master informed us that out of the batch of 58 petitions, 13 petitions contain different prayers. He pointed out that in some of the petitions prayers have been made for inclusion in and exclusion from the voters’ list, in some cases prayer has been made for issue of direction to the authority concerned to accept nomination paper and in one case, prayer is to quash the reservation of the office of Sarpanch. In view of the submissions made by the Court Master, we directed that the 13 petitions shall not be included in the order passed in the open Court on 25.07.2006 and they be listed on 27.07.2006 under the caption ‘for being mentioned’. This is the reason why the 13 matters have been listed today. In this petition, the petitioner has made an omnibus prayer for inclusion of names of 42 persons in the voters’ list of Rajupalem Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District and also restrain the respondents from conducting election for Rajupalem Gram Panchayat. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Although some of the documents filed by the petitioner are in vernacular and one of us (the Chief Justice) is not conversant with Telugu language, with the help of the other member of the Bench (G.V. Seethapathy,J), both of us have been able to scrutinize the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition with reference to the annexed documents. In our opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner does not have locus to seek direction for inclusion of the names of the other persons in the voters’ list. It is neither the pleaded case of the petitioner nor any material has been placed on the record of the writ petition to show that the persons whose names are sought to be included in the voters’ list are, on account of illiteracy, ignorance, poverty or physical unfitness, handicapped from approaching the Court for vindication of their rights. Each person whose name is said to have been arbitrarily excluded from the electoral roll of Rajupalem Village has the right to seek intervention of the Court and make a prayer for issue of a direction to include his/her name in the voters’ list. However, the petitioner, who does not have any grievance in the matter of inclusion of his name in the voters’ list, cannot be permitted to represent the cause of other unknown persons. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27.07.2006 ksld