Election Commn.Of India vs Telangana Rastra Samithi & Anr

3. Briefly stated, the facts indicate that in order to press for a separate Telangana State, a Joint Action Committee was formed with all political parties which took a decision that all the members of the Legislative Assembly of the respective political parties should resign. Consequently, 12 members submitted their resignations from the membership of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly to the Speaker of the Assembly on 14th February, 2010. On receipt of the said resignations, the Speaker ordered that the resultant vacancies be notified. The said notification was duly published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette (Part II Extraordinary) dated 14.02.2010. The Election Commission of India issued a Press Note dated 21.06.2010 under Section 30 of the 1951 Act, notifying its decision to hold bye-elections to fill up 10 clear vacancies according to the programme indicated therein. The bye-elections to 28- Vemulawada and 29-Sircilla Assembly Constituencies were not notified on account of the fact that election petitions were pending in which the petitioners had sought to be declared elected. Accordingly, there being 10 clear vacancies in the State Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh, the Commission decided to hold bye-elections to fill up the 10 clear vacancies as per programme indicated. The decision of the Election Commission of India, hereinafter referred to as "the Commission", not to hold bye- elections in the two aforesaid constituencies was challenged in the writ petition, which was ultimately allowed.

7. On the basis of its aforesaid findings the High Court, despite the decision of this Court in D. Sanjeevayya Vs. Election Tribunal Andhra Pradesh and others [AIR 1967 SC 1211 = 1967 (2) SCR 489], held that the submissions made on behalf of the Election Commission that the provisions of Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, should be interpreted so as not to render Sections 84, 98 and 101 otiose, was unsustainable. It was also held that a Court should decide a case as per the law as on the existing date of adjudication. The High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and directed elections be held in the two constituencies referred to hereinabove, since in its view ignoring the provisions of Section 151A of the 1951 Act would amount to violation of Article 327 and valid law made by Parliament.

36. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is, accordingly, set aside and the writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1 herein for a direction to hold bye-elections for the 28- Vemulawada Assembly Constituency and 29-Sircilla Assembly Constituency is dismissed. Having regard to the facts involved, the parties will bear their own costs.

................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR) ................................................J. (A.K. PATNAIK) New Delhi Dated:3.12.2010 38 ITEM NO.1A. COURT NO.2 SECTION XIIA [for judgment] S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A.No......../2010 @Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20590/2010 (From the judgement and order dated 30/06/2010 in WP No. 14443/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF A.P AT HYDERABAD) ELECTION COMMN.OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS TELANGANA RASTRA SAMITHI & ANR Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora,Adv.

Ms Poli Katakai, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Sonam Anand, Adv.

Mr. J.Ramachander Rao, Adv.

Mr. P.Venkat Reddy, Adv.

Mr. B.Ramamurthy, Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed judgment.

[Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file]