HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. V. SEETHAPATHY Writ Appeal Nos. 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, and, 662 of 2006 W.A. 568 of 2006 Between: The State Election Commission, Rep. by its Secretary and others … Appellants And N. Sekhar and others … Respondents ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for the appellants: Advocate General for the State and other officers Sri Nuty Rama Mohana Rao for State Election Commission Counsel for private respondents: Shri S. Ramachandra Rao, Senior Advocate with K. R. Prabhakar, and Sarvasri P. Venugopal, M.V. Durga Prasad, T. Surya Karan Reddy, Naresh Byrapaneni, Raja Ram with M. Subba Reddy, I. Koti Reddy, K.G.K. Prasad, Smt.D. Radha Rani, V. Sri Ranga Rao, Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, Dammalapati Srinivas, Taddi Nageswara Rao, G.V. Shivaji, Smt.Chandana Madala, and Venkateswarlu Posani June 09, 2006 Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ These appeals are directed against order dated 1-6-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10574 of 2006 and batch whereby he directed the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj to undertake an exhaustive review of the reorganization of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTCs.) in various Mandals in the State and also directed the State Election Commissioner (for short ‘the SEC’) to ensure that sanctity of the voters list published in February 2006 is maintained and examine whether deletions or additions of names subsequent to the publication of list in February 2006 has been made after following the procedure prescribed under Sections 21 and 22 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (for short ‘the R.P. Act’). For the sake of convenient reference, the directions given by the learned Single Judge are extracted below: “The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj shall undertake an exhaustive review of the reorganization of MPTCs in various Mandals in the State and take necessary steps to ensure that— a. where the number of MPTCs in a Mandal remains unaltered, the existing set up is not disturbed; b. where 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 ensure; and d. perfect balance is maintained 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 the sanctity of the voter’s list published in February 2006 is maintained in the matter 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.Ms.No.254 dt.4-8- 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 exercise indicated above shall be undertaken expeditiously and completed before the Election Notification is issued.” The background in which the learned Single Judge gave the aforementioned directions may be noticed first. On 27-9-2005, the State Election Commission (hereinafter described as ‘the State Commission’) issued Press Note No.1424/SEC-F1/2005 and notified the order passed by the Election Commission of India for summary revision of assembly electoral rolls with reference to 1-1-2006 as qualifying date and called upon the political parties and general public to check the assembly electoral rolls and make necessary claims/objections for inclusion and deletion by indicating that the same will be used as mother rolls for preparation of electoral rolls for Panchayat Raj Elections to be held in 2006. The relevant extracts of the Press Note are reproduced below: “The Election Commission of India ordered special summary revision of assembly electoral rolls with reference to 1-1-2006 as qualifying date. The following schedule was given for the revision process. 1. Draft publications of rolls on - 20-10-2005 (Thursday) 2. Period for filing claims and objections and reading of relevant part/section of electoral roll in gram sabha/urban local bodies and resident welfare association meetings etc. - 20-10-2005 (Thursday) to 19- 11-2005 (Saturday) 3. Special campaign dates for receiving claims and objections at all designated locations - 29-10-2005 (Saturday)30-10- 2005 (Sunday)12- 11-2005 (Saturday)13-11- 2005 (Sunday) 4. Disposal of claims and objections by - 22-12-2005 (Thursday) 5. Preparation and printing of supplements and additions, deletions and corrections by - 20-1-2006 (Friday) 6. Final publication of electoral rolls on - 24-1-2006 (Tuesday) As per the provisions of the Acts governing local bodies, the wardwise electoral rolls thereof are prepared before each ordinary and casual election duly adopting the latest assembly electoral rolls as mother rolls. There is no provision in Acts governing local bodies for suo motu inclusion or deletion of names in the electoral roll of local bodies. However, any inclusion or deletion ordered by the Electoral Registration Officer of the Assembly Constituency concerned under Sections 22 and 23 of the R.P. Act, 1950 up to the date of election notification of any local body shall only be carried out in the electoral roll of the local body concerned. The ordinary elections to mandal parishads, zilla parishads and gram panchayats are scheduled to be held during the middle of the year 2006 as the term of the existing bodies will be completed in July/August, 2006. The Assembly electoral rolls now prepared and published by the ECI with reference to 1-1-2006 as qualifying date are to be adopted as mother rolls for preparation of electoral rolls for election to panchayat raj bodies. During the recent elections to municipal bodies, some of the political parties complained that there were discrepancies in the wardwise electoral rolls of the municipal bodies and that sufficient time was not given for eligible persons to enroll themselves in the assembly electoral roll and consequently the same deficiencies also got reflected in the local body electoral roll. Therefore, the State Election Commission hereby appeals to all the political parties and general public to check the Assembly electoral rolls that are undergoing special revision as per the above schedule issued by the Election Commission of India with reference to 1-1-2006 as qualifying date and make necessary claims and objections for inclusion and deletion wherever necessary as these latest rolls will be used as mother rolls for preparation of electoral rolls for pancyahat raj elections due to be held in the year 2006.” The Secretary of the State Commission sent letter dated 24-10-2005 to the State Presidents and General Secretaries of all recognized and registered political parties to motivate the public to file necessary claims and objections for inclusion and deletion of names. After about seven months, the State Commission, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Panchayat Act’) and the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Preparation and Publication of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 2000 (for short ‘the Rules’) directed all the District Panchayat Officers in the State to prepare and publish on 8-5-2006 the electoral rolls of all the Gram Panchayats in their respective districts with reference to 1-1-2006 as the qualifying date by duly indicating the ward revision as required under Rule 5 of the Rules in Form-I thereof. This was followed by Press Note dated 12-5-2006 issued by the Secretary of the State Commission, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced below: “The electoral rolls of all gram panchayats in the State have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Preparation and publication of electoral rolls) Rules, 2000 issued thereunder by adopting the existing entries in the relevant part of latest Assembly Electoral Rolls (with reference to 1-1-2006 as qualifying date) and were published by the District Panchayat Officers concerned in the respective gram panchayats on 08-5- 2006. These electoral rolls will be utilized in the forthcoming elections to Panchayat Raj Bodies. The above said provisions do not provide for direct inclusion or deletion of any name from the panchayat electoral rolls. Any person who wishes to lodge any claim for inclusion of his/her name or any objection to the inclusion of a name or any objection to the particulars in any entry in the gram panchayat electoral roll, shall first get such claim or objection settled with reference to corresponding entry in the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency concerned by lodging suitable claim or objection under the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, made thereunder before the Electoral Registration Officer of the Assembly Constituency concerned. Such claims and objections can be lodged with either Electoral Registration Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer) or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer concerned). All orders of inclusions, deletions or corrections in the electoral rolls of the Assembly Constituency issued on the basis of such claims and objections by the Electoral Registration Officer till the date of issue of election notification for the Panchayat Raj Body concerned will be duly carried out in the electoral roll of the gram panchayat concerned. The general public and political parties are requested to avail this opportunity to verify the electoral rolls of the gram panchayats and take remedial action as explained above.” On 16-5-2006, the State Commission, by taking cognizance of the complaint received from the general public and political parties that electoral roll prepared and published for the Gram Panchayat Elections contain certain deviations from the entries found in the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency, directed the Collectors to ensure that the entries in the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency are truly and correctly reflected in the electoral roll published for the concerned gram panchayat. This was reiterated vide letter No.194/SEC-B2/2006 dated 22-5-2006 issued by the Secretary of the State Commission. After four days, the State Commission issued Press Note stating therein that the general public and political parties were asked to verify the Gram Panchayat electoral roll and take remedial action wherever necessary and reiterated that the State Commission cannot on its own include or exclude names from the electoral roll and the same has to be done in accordance with the provisions of the R.P. Act. Simultaneously it was indicated that any inclusion or exclusion effected in the Assembly electoral roll till the date of election notification for Panchayat Raj Bodies will be carried out in the Panchayat Raj electoral rolls. This is evinced from the last paragraph of the Press Note, which is reproduced below: “The State Election Commission wants to reiterate that by itself under the law it cannot either include or exclude names from the electoral roll. It is for the concerned public to file applications in accordance with the law under the R.P. Act, 1950 and have their names included/excluded in the Assembly electoral rolls in the first instance and thereafter alone the names can be included/excluded in panchayat electoral rolls. To enable this, the State Election ordered publication of the electoral roll on 08-05-2006 itself leaving ample time to the general public and political parties to see that applications are filed within time for inclusions and exclusions. The State Election Commission has therefore done everything necessary, alerted the political parties, general public and issued strict instructions to the Collectors in this regard. Any inclusions and exclusions effected in the Assembly electoral roll till the date of election notification for Panchayat Raj bodies will be carried out in the Panchayat electoral rolls.” (Emphasis added) Between 23rd May and 29th May, 2006, a large number of petitions were filed questioning the electoral rolls published for the forthcoming Panchayat Raj Elections as also for determination of the MPTCs. For the sake of convenient reference, we have taken the facts from Writ Petition No.10965 of 2006 filed by Sri N. Sekhar and Writ Petition No.10530 of 2006 filed by Sri K. Veeranjaneyulu. In his petition, Sri N. Sekhar prayed for grant of a declaration that the action of the respondents to delete the names of eligible voters while refusing to exclude the names of ineligible voters from the voters list of Nadendla Mandal, Nadendla Gram Panchayat is illegal. He also sought a declaration that failure of the authorities not to pass orders on the appeals preferred by the affected parties is illegal, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as also the provisions of the Panchayat Act and the Rules. He further prayed for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to include the names of eligible voters and exclude those of ineligible voters from the voters list of Nadendla Gram Panchayat before issuing election notification. He also filed an application for issue of a direction to the respondents to undertake revision of electoral roll and not to notify the election till that exercise is completed. Sri K. Veeranjaneyulu and others filed writ petitions questioning the action of the respondents to determine MPTCs. by alleging that the respondents have arbitrarily excluded certain territories and included some other territories in the MPTCs. and all this has been done with the sole object of favouring the candidates of the party in power. They have averred that the exercise undertaken by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and officers subordinate to him is contrary to Section 150 of the Panchayat Act and Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Division of Mandal into Constituencies) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter described as ‘Mandal Constituencies Rules’). The petitioners have further averred that the boundaries of the existing MPTCs. have been changed in a most arbitrary manner ignoring the criteria specified in Rule 3 of the Mandal Constituencies Rules and in complete disregard of the ‘rule of contiguity’. In some cases, panchayats situated at a distance of 10 to 12 kms. have been made part of the particular Mandal Constituencies and area of the adjacent panchayats have been excluded. In the writ petition filed by him, which stands registered as Writ Petition No.10530 of 2006, Sri K. Veeranjaneyulu has averred that 16 Mandal Territorial Constituencies were carved out of Parchur Mandal of Prakasam District in accordance with the provisions of Section 268 (11) read with Section 150 of the Act and guidelines issued vide Memo dated 3-1-1995. However, in the garb of undertaking fresh exercise for the ongoing elections, some of the villages have been arbitrarily deleted from Devarapalli MPTC. This is particularly done in respect of villages of Bodawada and Ch.B. Palem. According to him, Bodawada has been added to Parchur-III MPTC without any reason or rhyme and, therefore, the respondents should be restrained from holding election on the basis of the revised MPTCs. In some of the petitions, it has been alleged that the MPTCs have been changed/reconstituted/reorganized at the instance of the Members of the Legislative Assembly and other politically influential people belonging to the ruling party. The learned Single Judge, after hearing arguments, posted the writ petitions for admission on 19-6-2006 and passed the interim order, the relevant portions of which have been extracted above. The learned Advocate General and Sri Nuty Ram Mohana Rao, Advocate appearing for the State Commission assailed the impugned order and argued that without recording a specific finding on the tenability of the plea taken by the writ petitioners that the voters list published by the District Panchayat Officers and the exercise undertaken for determination/re-determination of MPTCs. are patently illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions contained in the Act and various Rules, the learned Single Judge could not have given omnibus and general interim directions virtually stultifying the impending election, which is bound to be held before the end of five years term of the panchayat bodies, as per the mandate of Article 243-E (1) of the Constitution. Both the learned counsel took us through different portions of the order under challenge to show that without recording any finding on the legality or otherwise of the electoral rolls or determination of the MPTCs., the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order. The learned Advocate General emphasized that the order under challenge does not contain consideration of the factual matrix of any particular case and the learned Single Judge passed omnibus directions, which are legally unsustainable. Learned Advocate General pointed out that in furtherance of Memo No.1418/Election and Rules/82/2006-4 dated 27-4-2006 issued by the government for determining the number of MPTCs., with reference to the 2001 census, the Collectors of various districts have, after considering and disposing of as many as 968 objections, determined 16,161 MPTCs., and, if illegalities or aberrations are ultimately established in one or more cases, then the Court may direct holding of fresh election for such constituency, but there could be no justification for issue of an interim direction for overall review of the constitution and reorganization of all the MPTCs. in the State. Sri Nuty Ram Mohana Rao submitted that by virtue of Section 11 of the Act, the electoral rolls prepared for Assembly Constituencies in accordance with the provisions of the R.P. Act are made basis for holding elections to the Gram Panchayats etc. and no revision can be made by the State authorities unless deletion or addition is made by following the procedure prescribed under that Act. He emphasized that the petitioners have not questioned the vires of Section 11 of the Act and the Rules and argued that without challenging the vires of Section 11 and the Rules, they cannot question the electoral rolls notified for the forthcoming election. At the end of his submissions, the learned Advocate General made a statement that all those persons who have filed objections under the R.P. Act for inclusion or exclusion of names from the electoral roll of any particular panchayat and succeeded in persuading the competent authority to accept their claims, the changes will be taken into consideration and eligible persons will be allowed to cast votes provided that such an order is passed by the competent authority before the date of issue of election notification. Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K. R.Prabhakar and Sarvasri P. Venugopal, M.V. Durga Prasad, T. Suryakaran Reddy, Naresh Byrapaneni, M. Subba Reddy, I. Koti Reddy, V. Sri Ranga Rao, Kanakamedha Ravindra Kumar, Dammalapati SRinivas, TAddi Nageswara Rao, G.V. Shivaji, Smt.Chandana Madala, Smt.D. Radha Rani and Venkateswarlu Posani strongly pleaded for not upsetting the directions given by the learned Single Judge by arguing that the State Commission, the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and officers subordinate to them have committed grave illegalities in the preparation of electoral rolls and determination of MPTCs. Sri S. Ramachandra Rao referred to Article 243-K of the Constitution and Sections 11, 12 and 201 of the Panchayat Act and argued that the entrustment of the authority to the District Panchayat Officers to prepare the electoral rolls is a complete negation of the power of supervision and control which vests in the State Commission by virtue of Article 243-K of the Constitution and Section 201 of the Panchayat Act. Learned counsel submitted that Rule 5 of the Rules, which provide for printing and publication of electoral rolls by the District Panchayat Officer, and Rule 6, which provide for correction of the electoral rolls by the District Panchayat Officer, are violative of the concept of supervision and control of the State Commission. He referred to G.O.Ms.No.879, PR, RD & R Department (Elections-I) Department, dated 3-12-1994, G.O.Ms.No.898, PR, RD & R (Elections-I) Department, dated 10-12- 1994, G.O.Ms.No.913, PR, RD & R (Elections-I) Department, dated 21-12-1994 and G.O.Ms.No.923, PR, RD & R Department, dated 28-12-1994 and argued that the repeal of the provision for lodging of objections against the electoral roll, determination thereof by the Electoral Registration Officer and lodging of appeal has completely denuded the State Commission of its authority under Section 201 of the Panchayat Act. Learned counsel emphasized that there is no provision in the Rules for preparation of draft or final rolls and, thus, the aggrieved persons are deprived of their legitimate right to object to the arbitrary exclusion or inclusion of the names of eligible/ineligible persons in the electoral rolls. Sri Rao then argued that the determination of MPTCs. is required to be done strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Territorial Constituencies Rules and the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by directing the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj to undertake an exhaustive review of the re-organisation of MPTCs. in various Mandals of the State. In support of his submissions Sri Rao also filed written arguments. Other learned counsel appearing for the respondents in these appeals largely adopted the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Sri S. Ramachandra Rao and submitted that the respondents should not be allowed to conduct elections on the basis of patently illegal electoral rolls and contumacious exercise undertaken for constitution, determination and re-determination of MPTCs. Learned counsel referred to the facts of individual cases to show that the names of a number of electors were arbitrarily excluded from the rolls of the Assembly Constituency and the objection submitted by the writ petitioners have not been considered. They argued that grave irregularities have been committed in determination of MPTCs. and all this has been done with a view to facilitate the elections of the candidates to be set up by the ruling party. Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.10871 of 2006 pointed out that all the petitioners are members of backward class, but their category has not been indicated in the voters list and, on that account, they will be deprived of their right to contest election as members of reserved category. Sri Raja Ram, Advocate appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.10006 of 2006 pointed out that the population criteria has been altogether overlooked in re-determining MPTCs. He pointed out that one of the village panchayats has been arbitrarily deleted from the existing MPTC and argued that this has been done with the sole object of favouring the candidate of the ruling party. Sri G. V. Shivaji, Advocate appearing for the respondent in W.A. (SR) No.59761 of 2006 argued that ‘rule of contiguity’ has been violated while determining the MPTCs. and even the approval of the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj has not been obtained. Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, Advocate appearing for the respondent in W.A. (SR) No.58808 of 2006 argued that the existing constituency has been divided and a village as far away as 12 kms. has been made a part of the new MPTC. Sri M.V. Durga Prasad appearing for some of the respondents pointed out