JUDGMENT : RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. 1. Assailing the common order dated 14.08.2025 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 21648 & 21661 of 2025, the petitioner therein preferred these intra court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. Inasmuch as these appeals arise out of a common order, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. The contents of the writ petitions, in brief, are that leaders and supporters of the ruling party along with men gathered at polling stations arming with deadly weapons did not permit the polling agents of their opponent candidates to enter into polling stations, captured the polling booths, intimidated the voters and rigged the votes and though complained the police as well as polling officers did not take any action, therefore, there was abdication of statutory duty cast upon them. 4. The learned single Judge, upon considering the contents of the writ petitions and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed both the writ petitions vide common order. The said common order was called in question in these writ appeals. 5. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for appellants in both the writ appeals, learned Government Pleaders for Panchayat Raj and Home for official respondents, Sri S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission, Sri Shaik Mohd.Ismail, learned counsel for respondent no.14 in W.A.No.963 of 2025 and Sri K.Yashwanth, learned counsel for respondent no.7 in W.A.No.1001 of 2025 and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General for the State in both the writ appeals. 6. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for appellants in both the writ appeals, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavits and grounds of appeal would contend that the State Election Commission had utterly failed to curb the large scale irregularities committed by the ruling party on the day of election and despite being pointed out the learned single Judge, misconstruing the relief sought for, erroneously dismissed the writ petitions. He would further contend that intervention of law Courts for facilitating free and fair process of election is not barred by Articles 329(b) or 243(O) of the Constitution and the view taken by the learned single Judge that State Election Commission cannot order repolling except on the reports of election machinery is misconceived and the learned Judge failed to observe that abstinence of State Election Commission from intervention facilitated the ruling party to violate the law at will. He, therefore, prayed to allow the writ appeals. 7. On the other hand, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General, justified the impugned common order and submitted that the order of the learned single Judge does not warrant any interference of this Court, that the writ appeals devoid of merit and they deserve dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ appeals. Sri S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission, Sri Shaik Mohd.Ismail and Sri K.Yashwanth, learned counsel, addressed arguments on similar lines. 8. The prime grievance of the appellants is that people who are not the residents of the respective territorial constituency have participated in voting, their polling agents were prevented from entering the polling booths to discharge their functions as agents and their sympathisers were not allowed to franchise and there was booth capturing and rigging. 9. Sub-Section-2 of section 58-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 envisages that the election Commission shall, on receipt of a report from the returning officer under sub-section (1) and after taking all material circumstances into account, either declare that the polling at that polling station or place be void, or if satisfied that large number of polling stations or places involved in booth capturing in such a manner as to affect the result of the election, may countermand the election in that constituency. 10. Section 231 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 runs similar to Section 58-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 11. Therefore, both the above provisions mandates that the Election Commission shall act upon the report of the returning officer. In view of the above statutory mandate, the submission made contra that the State Election Commission shall not limit its intervention solely based on the reports of the election machinery, deserves no acceptance. 11. Therefore, both the above provisions mandates that the Election Commission shall act upon the report of the returning officer. In view of the above statutory mandate, the submission made contra that the State Election Commission shall not limit its intervention solely based on the reports of the election machinery, deserves no acceptance. It is not as though the State Election Commission did not act despite reports of the returning officers and moreover it is the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission that based on the reports of the returning officers, repolling was ordered in two polling booths. 12. Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution states that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the legislature of a State. 13. Section 233 of the Andhra Pradesh panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which starts with a non-obstante clause states that no election held under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in accordance with such Rules as may be made in this behalf. 14. Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules, 1995 are the relevant rules made for the purpose mentioned in Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act,1994. As per sub clause (b) of Rule 2, the aggrieved party shall file an Election Petition in respect of the election in relation to Zilla Praja Parishad. 15. From the above, the petitioners, who are aggrieved of election in relation to Zilla Praja Parishad shall file an Election Petition before the Civil Court (senior division) having territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the offence of Zilla Praja Parishad is located. 16. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners could only be adjudicated by the Election Tribunal in a duly instituted election petition not but in a writ petition. 17. Apart from the above, substantiation of the allegations made by the petitioners require letting in of oral and documentary evidence and its evaluation. A writ Court cannot take up such a task and the Election Tribunal established under the relevant statute would be the appropriate forum for the petitioners to get their grievance redressed. 18. 17. Apart from the above, substantiation of the allegations made by the petitioners require letting in of oral and documentary evidence and its evaluation. A writ Court cannot take up such a task and the Election Tribunal established under the relevant statute would be the appropriate forum for the petitioners to get their grievance redressed. 18. The learned single Judge upon considering the relevant provisions and the conspectus of law emanated from the decisions relied on by both the parties, had rightly dismissed the writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Election Tribunal to resolve the issues involved in the writ petitions. The said order of the learned single Judge, in our view, does not suffer from any impurity that requires interference of this Court. The Writ Appeals being meritless deserve dismissal. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.