Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 107 (AP)

Kondla Subbayamma v. Sub-Collector

2009-02-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2009
Judgment :- Elections to the Mandal Parishad, Devipatnam were held on 28.06.2006. The Parishad comprised of 9 territorial constituencies. The 1st petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 were elected as nominees of Telugu Desam Party. The 2nd petitioner was elected as independent. The petitioners herein were elected as President and Vice-President respectively of the Mandal Parishad. Respondents 4 and 5 submitted their resignation to Telugu Desam Party on 21.01.2009. One day thereafter, they along with three other members signed the notices in Form-II prescribed under the Rules published in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.04.1998 and delivered the same to the Sub-collector, Rampachodavaram, 1st respondent herein, with a request to convene a meeting of the Mandal Parishad, to express lack of confidence in the petitioners. The resolutions were carried out as scheduled. The petitioners submitted a representation to respondents 1 to 3 with a request to disqualify respondents 4 and 5 under Section 153(1) of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act'). This writ petition is filed for a declaration that the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not disqualifying respondents 4 and 5 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 153 of the Act. Sri B. Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Act contains several provisions to ensure purity in the electoral process and to avoid horse-trading. He contends that the various consequences provided for under Section 153 of the Act ensue even in the case of subsequent elections and that there was no justification for respondents 1 to 3 in not disqualifying respondents 4 and 5. He places reliance upon the Judgments of this Court in Akula Ganga Raju vs. Presiding Officer, Yeleswaram Mandal Praja Parishad ( 2003 (5) ALD 619 ). and C.R. Saraswatamma vs. Presiding Officer-cum-Election Officer/Nodal Officer 2005(1) ALD 37 . Shifting of loyalties by the elected representatives has assumed disturbing proportions. With a view to curb the same, the Parliament introduced Schedule-X through 52nd amendment in the year 1985. It attaches disqualification, whenever an elected member of parliament or assembly, joins another political party. Certain exceptions and conditions are provided for. With the same spirit, the A.P. State Legislature enacted Section 153 of the Act. However, it is confined only to the one of requiring an elected representative to follow the whip issued by the concerned political party. Violation of the whip is to entail in cessation of membership. Certain exceptions and conditions are provided for. With the same spirit, the A.P. State Legislature enacted Section 153 of the Act. However, it is confined only to the one of requiring an elected representative to follow the whip issued by the concerned political party. Violation of the whip is to entail in cessation of membership. Except this, there is no other provision in the Act and the Rules, that brings about disqualification on this count. Howsoever laudable it may be to disqualify an individual on account of change of loyalty to the political party, the consequences in this regard can ensue only by operation of law. The Act does not deal with the resignation of an elected member to the political party, which sponsored him, and joining of another party. The only restriction is in the context of whip, which is issued at the time of initial election. In other words, except where an elected candidate had violated the whip issued by the political party, cessation on that count cannot be added to him for subsequent change of loyalties. The Legislature, which provided for issuance of whip at the time of initial election of President and Vice-President of Mandal Parishad etc., did not provide for the same in the context of tabling no confidence motions and decisions thereon under Rule 3 of the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.200. When the Act and the Rules are silent about issuance of whip and the consequences for violating the same in the context of tabling no confidence motions, an elected member cannot be disqualified on the sole ground that he resigned to the political party, which sponsored him, and joined another. The Judgments relied upon by the petitioners directly arose under Section 153 of the Act and on finding that the elected members have violated the whip, disqualification was attached to them. Such is not the case here. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.