BODDULA KRISHNAIAH AND ANR. versus STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 20-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• • 
BODDULA KRISHNAIAH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, A.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 20, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND 
K.S. PARI!'OORNAN, JJ.] 
A11dhra Pradesh Pa11chayat Raj Act, 1994 : Sectio11 33. 
A 
B 
A11dhra Pradesh Pa11chayat Raj Electio11 Tribullals ill respect of Gram C 
Pallchayat Malldal Parishads alld Zi/a Parishad Rules, 1994: Rules 2(1)(2) 
alld 12( d)(iii). 
Collstitutioll of llldia, 1950: Anicle 243(0). 
E/ectioll process-'-Power of Coun to illteifere with--<Jram Pallchayat D 
Election-Draft Electoral Rolls-Deletion of names of 94 peiwn.1'-Writ-ln-
terim order by High Cowt a day before Election-lntedm order directing that 
94 persons should panicipate in the electio11 but on the date of poll they could 
1wt exercise their franchis.,-Directiolls sought for exercisi11gfranchise-l11ter-
im order by High Cowt 11ot to declare the result of the electi01t-High Coun E 
also directing Reve11ue Divisional Officer to co11duct enquiry-Findi11g that 20 
persons were eligible to be i11cluded in the voter's list-High Coun directing 
that 20 perso11s found eligible should exercise their fra11chise sepamtely whe11 
the poll was already over-Appeal agai11st Order of High Coun-Held the 
order passed by the High Cowt was not con-ect in low i11 givi11g direction 11ot 
to declare the result of the electio11 or to co11duct fresh poll for 20 persons, F 
though the writ petitio11 was maintai11able-1he High Cowt, pe11ding writ 
petitioll was not justified ill issui11g direction to stall the election process. 
Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission, [1967] 1 SCR 400 = 
AIR (1967) SC 669, cited. 
N.P. Punnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constitue11cy & Ors., 
[1952] SCR 218; Lakshmi Chara11 Sen and Ors. Etc. v. A.KM. Hassan 
Uzzama11 & Ors. Etc., [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 493 aud State of U.P. & Ors. v. 
Pradha11, Sangh Kshettra Samiti & Ors., [1995] Supp. 2 SCC 305, referred 
to. 
687 
G 
H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5283-84 
B 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.95 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. Misc. P. No. 16901/95, W.V.M.P. No. 2478, In W.P. 
No. 13830, W.P.M.P. No: 16901 of 1995. 
P.P. Rao, L. Nageshwara Rao, Vimal Dave, M. Narayana Rao and 
B. Rajeshwara Rao for the Appellants. 
M.M. Reddy, D. Prakash Reddy, K. Ram Kumar, Balasubramaniam 
C and Ms. S. Usha Reddy, for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides. 
D 
The controversy relates to election to the Gram Panchayat, Nalgonda 
District of Andhra Pradesh. The Notification was issued on June 7, 1995 
to conduct elections to the Gram Panchayat Under the Andhra Pradesh 
Panchayat Raj Act, (No 13 of 1994) 1994 (For short the 'Act'). The 
electoral rolls of the Gram Panchayat were required to be finalised 30 days 
prior to the poll. It would appear that in the draft roll prepared by the 
E competent authority, names of about 94 persons find their place but later 
their names were delete. Consequently, they filed Writ Petition No. 3060/95 
in the High Court including respondent No. 6-42 in this case. The elections 
were held and on 27th June, 1995. By an order dated 26th June, 1995 the 
High Court, by an interim order directed to allow 94 persons to participate 
F in the election but on the date of the poll they could not exercise their. 
franchise. Subsequently, in WPMP No. 16901/95 the respondent No. 6-42 
sought direction to permit them to exercise their franchise. By an interim 
order dated July 6, 1995, the direction was issued by the High Court not 
to declare the result of the election of the Gram Panchayat. The appellant 
and proforma respondent No. 43 filed WVMP No. 2478/95 to vacate the 
G direction issued by the High Court on July 6, 1995. On November 8, 1995, 
the High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Nalgonda 
to scrutinise the claims of respondent Nos. 6-42 and ascertain whether they 
are residing in the village. By proceedings dated December 2, 1995, the 
RDO found that only 20 persons were eligible to be included in the voters 
H list as they were found living in the village, during the enquiry. On these 
• • 
.. 
' \ 
. , 
y 
)I 
B. KRISHNAIAH v. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER A.P. 
689 
facts, the High Court by the impugned order dated December 22, 1995 A 
directed that 20 persons out of respondent Nos. 6-42, who were found 
eligible to vote should b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.