ORDER : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. This Interlocutory Application is filed for suspension of the Proceedings No. 513/SEC-B2/2020, dated 17.11.2020, issued by the respondent. 2. This application was heard at length on 03-12-2020. 3. Initially, Sri. Sumon, learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter on 03.12.2020 and for the respondent Sri. N Ashwin argued the matter. After hearing both the learned counsels it transpired that two earlier orders passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 141 of 2019 and W.P. (PIL) 153 of 2019, which were referred to in paragraph-16 of the Writ Petition affidavit, have some connection with the present issue. Therefore, hearing was adjourned with a direction to both the learned counsel to upload these orders/file these orders. 4. The matter was taken up for hearing on 04.12.2020. 5. The learned Advocate General himself has argued the matter at length. He initially concentrated on the papers filed and in particular the writ affidavit filed by the State Election Commissioner in W.P. (PIL) No. 141 of 2019. Drawing the attention of this Court to various paragraphs learned Advocate General argued and pointed out about issues between the State Election Commission and the State. He also relied on the original notification dated 15.03.2020, by which the elections which were scheduled to be held to the MPTC and ZPTC in the State, were postponed. He points out that this postponement was because of the COVID-19 only. He submits that the situation is the same even as on date. Relying on the data filed, learned Advocate General argued that the situation is still very grim in the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore he argues that the time is not conducive for conducting elections 6. The learned Advocate General also draws the attention of this Court to the letter addressed by the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh on 28.10.2020, wherein the prevalent COVID-19 situation and the dangers/difficulties anticipated while conducting elections were highlighted. Therefore, learned Advocate General argues that the State clearly stated in that letter that when the situation becomes conducive for conduct of elections the State will immediately inform the State Election Commissioner regarding the preparations. It is also pointed out that all the polling booths will be manned by police, teachers and other staff, who are posted for election duty. Therefore, learned Advocate General argues that the State clearly stated in that letter that when the situation becomes conducive for conduct of elections the State will immediately inform the State Election Commissioner regarding the preparations. It is also pointed out that all the polling booths will be manned by police, teachers and other staff, who are posted for election duty. It is submitted that both the voters and the large number of staff deputed would be at risk of exposure to Covid, particularly as the elections are scheduled to be held on more than one day. 7. Learned Advocate General relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Gowrav Kumar Bhansal v Union of India1 to buttress his submissions that the Government/State has a duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens as the parens patriae. Thereafter, the learned Advocate General relied upon the orders that were passed by the Division Bench in PIL and pointed out that the orders dated 07.11.2019, 14.11.2019 etc., cannot be read in isolation and that ultimately the fact remains that the elections were notified to be held in March, 2020. It is his contention that the Covid pandemic has hit India and due to the wide prevalence of Covid-19 the order was passed on 15.03.2020 to postpone the elections. The learned Advocate General submits that the supervening event viz., Covid-19 pandemic lead to the postponement of the elections. He refers to the orders passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 129 of 2020 by the Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court and the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and pointed out certain distinguishing features. Similarly, learned Advocate General also distinguished the applicability of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 7987 of 2020. As far as Bihar elections concerned learned Advocate General submits that the election had to be held during the Covid-19, as otherwise President's Rule would have to be imposed in that State. He also points out that the State Governments experience shows that there will be a very high turnout of the voters in the Panchayat elections. Therefore, the risk of Covid infection spreading is very very high. He also points out that the State Governments experience shows that there will be a very high turnout of the voters in the Panchayat elections. Therefore, the risk of Covid infection spreading is very very high. He also relies upon the orders passed by the Rajasthan and Karnataka High Courts and the reference to the Bihar Elections in the impugned order dated 17.11.2020 to contend that the State Election Commissioner did not consider the facts and circumstances and has mechanically cited these examples for coming to the conclusion that he did. It is his contention that the facts and circumstances of those cases or of the Bihar or elections held in other States cannot be compared to the fact situation prevalent in Andhra Pradesh. He submits that the State of Andhra Pradesh has expressed its deep sense of concern in the form of detailed letter that was addressed on 28.10.2020 by the Chief Secretary pointing out the high positivity rate of Covid cases in the State. The learned Advocate General argues that these factors were not taken into consideration by the State Election Commissioner in passing the impugned order. He also submits that in these circumstances, it is a fit case where the Court should interfere and grant stay as prayed for in I.A. No. 1 of 2020. 8. Sri. N. Ashwin, learned counsel for the respondent states that this is not the stage to grant any interim order. He points out that the issues raised by the petitioner can only be decided after a detailed counter affidavit is filed. Relying upon the impugned order dated 17.11.2020 he points out that consultations were held with a number of stakeholders including the political parties and top functionaries of the Health Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He points out that the impugned letter relies upon the fact that the elections were held for Bihar State Assembly and also in the city of Hyderabad in the neighbouring State of Telangana (GHMC Elections). He also points out that a meeting was convened on 28.10.2020, wherein 11 political parties have attended and they have also conveyed their views that the holding of elections with safeguards is favoured. Learned counsel points out that the actual schedule is not yet finalized. He also points out that a meeting was convened on 28.10.2020, wherein 11 political parties have attended and they have also conveyed their views that the holding of elections with safeguards is favoured. Learned counsel points out that the actual schedule is not yet finalized. He also draws the attention of this Court at more than one place it is emphasized that the Health Department should study the same with a view to implement the best practices. 9. Sri. Ashwin Kumar learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed an order in W.P. No. 32346 of 2018, wherein directions were given to hold the elections. He submits that as the same is not implemented, directions were sought in W.P. (PIL) No. 141 of 2019. Sri. Ashwin Kumar also points out the comments made by the Division Bench about the affidavits. Ultimately, he points out that the learned Advocate General stated that the scheme for conduct of the elections would be filed. This was noted in the order of the Division Bench on 14.11.2019. Thereafter, the order dated 21.11.2019 was passed, by which the Division Bench directed that the Elections are to be conducted for all the three tiers viz., Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads. Therefore, he submits that the granting any order at this stage would be running contrary to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Public Interest Litigation mentioned above which directed the State Election Commissioner to hold elections. 10. Sri. Ashwin Kumar also raises an issue that the dates for the Elections were already given and that they were merely postponed due to the breakout of a pandemic. Therefore, it is his contention that the election process has already begun as a notification was already issued. He submits that as per the settled law on the subject once the election process has commenced the same should not be interdicted or stopped. He also points out that State Election Commissioner cannot be equated to a government officer and that the State Election Commissioner exercises independent functions as a constitutional authority. He relies upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which is filed by him as a material paper in W.P. No. 7987 of 2020. 11. He also points out that State Election Commissioner cannot be equated to a government officer and that the State Election Commissioner exercises independent functions as a constitutional authority. He relies upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which is filed by him as a material paper in W.P. No. 7987 of 2020. 11. Further, relying on the orders passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 141 of 2019 learned counsel for the respondent points out that the Division Bench held that there is a constitutional mandate to hold the elections and points out that the Chief Election Commissioner of the State was asked in the order dated 07.11.2019 to explain why he did not take steps to hold the elections. He draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 14.11.2019 wherein the Court gave further directions about the conduct of the elections and finalization of the programme. Ultimately, he relies upon the order dated 21.11.2020, wherein the Division Bench held after perusing the affidavits that by the 1-week of January, 2020 the process of reservation would be completed, thereafter within 45 to 60 days elections would be conducted. Therefore, it is submitted that the process was started long ago with the orders in W.P. No. 32346 of 2018 and the Division Bench of this High Court is monitoring the situation in W.P. (PIL) No. 141 of 2019. 12. Lastly, it is submitted that the correctness of the averments of the affidavit filed in W.P. (PIL) No. 141 of 2019 is a matter to be considered by the Division Bench. He also submits that the contents of the additional counter affidavit should be read in conjunction of the writ averments to understand them better. Relying on the contents of the letter dated 17.11.2020 learned counsel for the State Election Commissioner argues that it is a rational order passed after considering the facts and circumstances. He therefore submits that the respondent should be given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and also documents if necessary to counter the allegations and also to explain its stand. Therefore, he submits that it is not a fit case in which the Court should grant of Interim Order at this stage. 13. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that at this stage itself lengthy and comprehensive arguments were advanced. Therefore, he submits that it is not a fit case in which the Court should grant of Interim Order at this stage. 13. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that at this stage itself lengthy and comprehensive arguments were advanced. The prayer in the Interim Application is for an interim direction to suspend the proceedings dated 17.11.2020. As an interim measure even till the filing of counter the learned Advocate General sought (for interim suspension of the impugned order. 14. However, this Court notices that there are lot of issues which need to be gone into in much greater detail. A few are detailed below- 1. The effect of the orders that were periodically passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 141 of 2019, on which both the learned counsel relied upon should be considered in greater depth. This PIL was also filed subsequent to the order passed by the learned single Judge of the combined High Court in W.P. No. 32346 of 2018, wherein positive directions were given to conduct elections for the Members and the Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayat. A direction was also given to the State Election Commissioner to request His Excellency the Governor to make available all the staff. Since this was not completed/complied, W.P. (PIL) No. 141 of 2019 was filed and further directions were issued leading to the initial schedule of elections being fixed. This schedule was postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Whether this Court can interdict the impugned order and if the same would amount to an interference with the directions in the earlier Court orders needs to be examined. 2. Whether the circumstances in the State of Andhra Pradesh are conducive for holding of elections due to Covid-19 needs to be examined. 3. Whether the election process has already commenced and there is only a postponement of the same or not is also an issue raised. If the election process is already commenced-whether an Interim Order staying any directions can be granted or not is to be examined. 4. The learned Advocate General's endeavor was to point out that the impugned letter dated 17.11.2020 is not based on a rational consideration of the facts. If the election process is already commenced-whether an Interim Order staying any directions can be granted or not is to be examined. 4. The learned Advocate General's endeavor was to point out that the impugned letter dated 17.11.2020 is not based on a rational consideration of the facts. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State Election Commission points out by relying upon the various paras of the impugned letter argued that the process of consultation was begun and issues were considered before this decision was taken. At this stage, this Court cannot decide on the correctness or otherwise of the contents of the impugned letter. The material, which the State Election Commissioner considered or the reasons for his conclusions must be explained by him in the opinion of this Court before it can come to any conclusion about the order dated 17.10.2020. 15. For deciding all the issues including what are stated above a counter affidavit of the respondent is necessary in the opinion of this Court. The issues of fact and law raised merit a deeper investigation and study before any final orders can be passed. 16. Hence, for all the above reasons, this Court holds this is not the stage to grant any interim order as prayed for. In view of the lengthy submissions made this Court also had to pass this order. 17. Hence, list the matter on 14.12.2020. Respondent is directed to file the counter affidavit. WP (C) 3736/2020 of Delhi High Court.