Dasetti Koteswara Rao v. The State Election Commission
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Jun 2005
- Bench
- ELIPE DHARMA RAO
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the election notification dt. 8-6-2005 relates to conduction of Elections including polling for sarpanch post of Korukonda Gram Panchayath of East Godavari District, as illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the election notification dt. 8-6-2005 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.U.SUMAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following : ORAL ORDER To declare the action of the respondents in issuing the election notification dated 08- 08-2005 for the election of Sarpanch of Korukonda village and Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles of 14,19,21 and 300 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents. The pith and substance of the writ petition is that the name of the petitioner was deleted from the electoral rolls of the Gram Panchayath, Korukonda village, East Godavari District, with a mala fide intention to prevent the petitioner to contest the post of Sarpanch. Now, the respondents have issued election notification dated 08- 06-2005 fixing the schedule as 17-06-2005 to 18-06-2005 for filing nominations, for withdrawal of nominations before 21-06-2005 and poling shall be on 28-06-2005. It is well settled principle of law that once election notification is issued fixing the schedule of the election, the question of interfering with the election notification does not arise. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he can agitate his grievance before the Election Tribunal. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the election notification and thus, this writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
Operative part
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. ____________________ ELIPE DHARMA RAO,J 22ND JUNE 2005 *TSNR To 1 The State Election Commission, 3rd Floor, Buddha Bhavan, M.G. Road, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 The Electoral Registration Officer, And Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godvari (Dt). 4 The District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari (Dt.)
Two CCS to G.P for PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(OUT)
Two C.D.Copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Jun 2005. The bench was ELIPE DHARMA RAO.
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.