Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 25 (AP)

Chunduru Vasu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-03

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2025
ORDER : Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. The writ petition is filed not holding elections for the existing Kothapeta Gram Panchyat, Vetaplem Mandalam of Prakasam District basing on the order of the 3rd respondent in Roc No: 490/2020(Pts) A3, dated 27.01.2021 and the order of rejection dated 27.09.2021 in Lr. No.101/SEC-B2/2021 of the 2nd respondent as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and it is in violation of Article 243-E of the Constitution of India, consequently prayed to direct the respondents to conduct elections to the Kothapeta Gram Panchyat, Vetaplem Mandalam. 2. The 3rd respondent District Collector filed counter and it is asserted that holding of election to Kothapeta Gram Panchayat is not feasible and due to administrative and legal impediments and due to final order was not delivered by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 96 of 2020 and in W.P. No. 13878 of 2019, the Gram Panchayat Elections were conducted to Kothapeta Gram Panchyat and other 7 Gram Panchayats in Vetapalem Mandalam, which were covered in G.O.Ms. No. 221 PR & RD (ER) Department, dated 31.12.2019, for formation of three new Gram Panchayats from the existing 8 Gram Panchayats by carrying out modification with merger and demerger of certain residential colonies including the Kothapeta Village. 3. The statement that made on behalf of the State Election Commission who is arrayed as 2nd respondent; is that after the State Government issues notifications for this purpose the State Election Commission will take steps to hold the elections to Kothapeta Gram Panchyat, Vetaplem Mandalam in time. 4. Learned designate senior counsel P. Veera Reddy for the petitioner would submit that one the resident of Kothapeta Gram Panchayat filed W.P. No. 96 of 2020 aggrieved by the bifurcation of the Kothapeta Gram Panchyat and this Court has suspended the G.O.Ms. No.221 dated 31.12.2019, vide order dated 13.03.2020. Subsequently, the said G.O.Ms. No. 221 PR & RD (ER) Department dated 31.12.2019 for formation of three new Gram Panchayats was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 96 of 2020 vide order dated 21.10.2024 and there is no such administrative and legal impediments to conduct elections not conducting elections to Kothapaeta Gram Panchayat and also further voiced that the Elections are the most powerful tool of indirect democracy since they encourage citizens to elect their representatives, hence urged to directed the respondents to conduct election for the Kothapeta Gram Panchayat forthwith. 5. 5. It is asserted in the affidavit that the respondents vide notification No.68/SEC-B1/2020 dated 07.03.220 published notification to conduct ordinary elections to Gram Panchayats, the electoral rolls displayed on 09.03.2020 and the election notification was published under rule 4 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006 and the nominations were on that day and the last date for receipt of nominations was 11.03.2020 and the poll was scheduled on 21.03.2020 the elections was not conducted due to Covid-19 pandemic subsequently the 1st respondent issued notification vide proceedings No: 513/SEC-B-2/2020 dt.08.01.2021 for conduct of elections for the local bodies that the last of the said local body elections came to and end on 21.02.2021. 6. Pertaining to Kothapeta Gram Panchyat the 2nd respondent has not issued election notification and no steps initiated to conduct elections despite the villagers of Kothapeta made several representations. 7. Upon giving our thoughtful consideration that the ground which appealed to this Court not to issue a writ of mandamus to the State Election Commission for holding elections to the Kothapeta Gram Panchayat is that bifurcation was the fact that on account of formation of three new Gram Panchayats for the existing 8 gram panchayats by carrying out modification with merger and demerger of certain residential colonies including the Kothapeta Village. 8. This Court has set aside the G.O.Ms.No. 221 PR & RD (ER) Department dated 31.12.2019 which is notified for formation of three new Gram Panchayats vide order dated 21.10.2024 in W.P. No. 96 of 2020, hence there is no administrative or legal impediment or legal obstacles to conduct election to the Kothapet Gram Panchayat. 9. The learned government pleader for Panchayat Raj has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal and others and Pranoy Roy and others, (2015) 16 SCC 248 to contend that no purpose or would be of any use in holding elections as per the proposed elections would come to an end and fresh elections will have to be held in the very short period. 10. This Court relies on Article 243-E, the same requires to be considered and is extracted as under: "Article 243-E:- Duration of Panchayats, etc: (1) Every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. (2)........... 10. This Court relies on Article 243-E, the same requires to be considered and is extracted as under: "Article 243-E:- Duration of Panchayats, etc: (1) Every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. (2)........... (3) An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed – (a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1); (b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution; Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Panchayat." 11. On perusal of the above Article where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued is less than six months it shall not be necessary to hold any election under sub-clause (b) of Clause 3. Elections for local bodies were held on 21.02.2021, and the dissolution process still has two years left. As a result, the judgment relied by the government pleader is not so much assistance to the respondents. 12. The Supreme Court in Kishansing Tomar Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabadand others, (2006) 8 SCC 352 ) had held that in the matter of conduct of elections, the State Government should render full assistance and cooperation to the State Election Commission and respect the latter's assessment of the needs in order to ensure that free and fair elections are held. 13. As a result, in the discussion above, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to hold election for the Kothapeta Gram Panchayat as soon as possible, and no later than six months. Additionally, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to provide the State Election Commission with full support and cooperation in order to guarantee the holding of a free and fair election. 14. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.