IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 5277 of 2008 Between: Guntamukkala Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o. Chinna Babu, R/o. Lankajudi Village, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Agency Divisional Officer -cum-Election Tribunal, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. 2 The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Sub Divisional Returning (Election) Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. 3 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector, Cum District Election Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 4 Mandal Parishad Development Officer-Cum-Mandal, Returning (Election) Officer, Kurupam, Vizianagaram District. 5 Sri Adikari Krishna Murthy, S/o. late Rami Naidu, R/o. Mondenkhalu Village, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 6 Sri Surapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Gumpaswamy, R/o. Gujuvai Sivadi Village, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any order appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent dt. 8-10-2007 allowing the Memo dt. 20-8-2007 filed by the 5th respondent herein thereby deleting the Sub-Divisional Officer- Cum-Sub Divisional Returning (Election) Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District from the array of the parties in E.O.P.No. 1/2007 without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void and violative of the principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.A. Narasimham Counsel for Respondent Nos 1 to 4: GP for Revenue The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent on 8th October 2007 on a memo moved by the 5th respondent in a pending Election O.P. Originally, the Election O.P. was instituted by the 5th respondent on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parvathipuram. The writ petitioner herein, whose election is called in question in the said O.P., had filed I.A. No. 192 of 2007 raising an objection about the maintainability of the Election O.P. on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parvathipuram. The said I.A. was allowed, returning the O.P. for presentation before the competent Court and consequently, the Election O.P. came to be instituted on the file of the Agency Divisional Officer-cum-Election Tribunal at Parvathipuram. The 5th respondent, therefore, filed a memo on 20th August 2007, claiming that the Agency Divisional Officer-cum- Election Tribunal, Parvathipruam, which was shown as the 4th respondent in the Election O.P. instituted on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court to be deleted. Entertaining the said memo, the present order has been passed. It is a fundamental principle of law that the Tribunal, which is constituted to resolve the disputes arising out of the elections, cannot be shown as a party respondent to the very same proceedings. After all, no Court can be a party to a pending proceeding. Therefore, in principle, the objection raised by the 5th respondent by filing the memo has been rightly upheld and ordered. This apart, the order has been passed on 8th October 2007 and the trial in the Election O.P. must have been halfway through. The writ petitioner has not challenged the orders of return of the Election O.P. No. 1 of 2007, passed by the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Parvathipuram, to the 1st respondent -Tribunal. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to challenge the order passed on 8th October 2007 on the memo filed by the 5th respondent, as it would amount to the Election O.P. instituted calling in question the election of the writ petitioner never to be taken up for trial by the 1st respondent. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) 13th March 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}