IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7586 of 2008 Between: S.Raju S/o.Abraham 2nd floor, Iyyengar Palaza Complex, 5-1-681/1,2 Bank Street, Kothi, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Legislative Assembly, rep. by its Secretary, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 Hon'ble Speaker, A.P. Legislative Assembly, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 State of A.P. rep. by its Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 State of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 The Chief Electrol Officer, State of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 6 The Election Commission of India, rep. by its Chief Election Commissioner, Government of India, Nirvachan Sadan, New Delhi. 7 Union of India, rep. by its Cabinet Secretary, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 8 Sri Vijaya Ranma Rao, C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 9 N.Narasimha Reddy C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 10 Nagesh C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 11 Harish Rao C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 12 Padma Devendar Reddy C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 13 Govinda Nayak C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 14 Chadnra Sekhar C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 15 Padma Rao C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 16 Ramalinga Reddy C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 17 Laxmikantha Rao C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 18 Koppula Eswar C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 19 Ravindar Reddy C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 20 Laxmi Reddy C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 21 Pratap Reddy C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 22 Rajendar C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 23 Gangi Reddy C/o. Telangana Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the resignation submitted by the party respondents on 4.3.2008 before the Hon'ble Speaker of the A.P. Legislative Assembly and acceptance of such resignations by the respondents 1 and 2 on 7.3.2008 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from ultra vires to proviso to article 190(3)(B) of the Constitution of India apart from against public interest and issue consequential directions, restraining the Respondents No. 5 and 6 from conducting Bye-elections to the Constituencies held by the party respondents prior to 4.3.2008 and issue further direction to continue the party respondents as Members of the Legislative Assembly for their respective Constituencies which they were holding prior to 4.3.2008 or alternatively direct the respondents not to allow the party respondents from contesting the income bye-elections which have become necessary because of party respondents resignation on 4.3.2008 and further direct the respondents to recover the entire expenditure which is going to be incurred in conducting the bye-elections from the party respondents or their party and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA The Court made the following : Oral order: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) This petition has been filed in public interest. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the resignations submitted by respondents 8 to 23, who were the Members of the Legislative Assembly, and accepted by respondent No.2 are bad in law and the said respondents be not permitted to contest the incoming bye-elections. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. It has been submitted by him that according to the proviso to Article 190(3) (b) of the Constitution of India, before acceptance of the resignations, the Honourable Speaker ought to have made enquiry as to whether the resignations submitted by the Members of the Legislative Assembly are voluntary or genuine. According to him, no such enquiry was made and the resignations submitted by respondents 8 to 23 are not voluntary or genuine. It has been, therefore, submitted that the petition be allowed. Learned Advocate has also relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v. Brojo Nath Ganguly[1] and Dr. Prabha Atri v. State of U.P.[2]. We have heard the learned Advocate and have gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate. Upon hearing the learned Advocate we find no substance in the submission made by him for the reason that respondent No.2-the Honourable Speaker must have enquired whether the resignations which had been submitted to him were voluntary and genuine, and, if the resignations were not voluntary or genuine, the concerned Members of the Legislative Assembly would have surely taken appropriate action. But in absence of any action taken by the said Members, we have reason to believe that the Honourable Speaker must have enquired whether the resignations were voluntary and genuine. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the allegations made by the petitioner that without making any enquiry, the resignations were accepted by the Honourable Speaker. So far as the judgments referred to by the learned Advocate are concerned, they pertain to service contract. In our opinion, the said judgments do not have any application in the instant case. So far as the prayer with regard to not permitting the aforestated respondents to contest the elections in future is concerned, we do not find any such provision in the Constitution restraining them from contesting the election for the remaining tenure, and, therefore, they cannot be restrained from contesting the election. For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned Advocate. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th April, 2008 GRR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies [1] AIR 1986 SC 1571 [2] (2003) 1 SCC 701