Padala Venkata Rami Reddy v. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Counsel for the petitioner : Shri Palle Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.1 : Smt. Jayasree Sarathy
Operative part
16.03.2007 Per C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy,J The petitioner, who claims to have filed his nomination for contesting election to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council as an independent candidate from Local Bodies’ Constituency of East Godavari, has filed this petition for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to restrict the entry of the Members of Legislative Assembly and Members of Parliament in the polling areas and also not to appoint Mandal Development Officers as polling officers in respect of the candidates contesting from the Local Bodies’ quota in East Godavari District. In the affidavit filed by him, the petitioner has expressed apprehension that the local Mandal Development Officer would act under the pressure from the local Member of Legislative Assembly and the Member of Parliament and if they are allowed to enter in the polling areas, then there will be no possibility of free and fair election. We have heard Shri Palle Nageswara Rao, who reiterated the petitioner’s apprehension local Member of Legislative Assembly and the Member of Parliament, if allowed to enter the polling areas, will influence the voters and the Mandal Development Officer. In the context of the submission made by him, we asked the learned counsel to point out any provision of the Representation of People Act, 1950, Representation of People Act, 1951 or any rule, order or instruction issued by the Election Commission of India under Article 324 of the Constitution restricting the entry of the Members of Legislative Assembly and the Parliament in the polling areas, but the learned counsel could not draw our attention to any such provision in the two enactments or rules, orders or instructions issued by the Election Commission of India. Therefore, we do not see any justification to entertain the prayer made by the petitioner only on the basis of apprehension expressed by him. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.6830 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
16.03. 2007
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Representation of the People Act, 1951; Constitution of India — art. 324.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.