LexD. SANJEEVAYYA versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D F G D. SANJEEVAYYA v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL, ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. January 27, 1967 [K. N. WANCHOO AND V: RAMASWAMI, JJ,j . R•~resentation of the l'eop/e ~ct (43 of 195.1), s. 150-Election peti- llOn with a prayer for a declaration that the petitioner was duly elected- Resignation by returned candidate-If Election Commission bound to hold bye-d/ectkm forthwith. The second respondent filed an election petition for the declarations : (I) that the election of the appellant to the State Legislative Assembly was void, and (2) that be himself was duly elected. While the petition was pending, the appellant was appointed as a Minister in the Central Cabinet and was elected as a member of the Rajya Sabha. He, thereupon resigned bis oeat in the State Legislative Assembly and filed a writ petition in the High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Election Commission of India on the ground that it was incumbent upon the Elec- tion Commission under s. 150 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to take steps forthwith to bold a bywlection for filling up the vacancy so caused. The petition was dismissed. IB appeal to this Cour•., HELD : No case was made out by the appellant for the issue of ·a writ of mandamus to the Election Commission as the Election Commission is not bound under s. 150 to take steps to hold a bye-election immediately after a vacancy arises. When the second respondent's election petition was referred to the Tribunal It bad to decide whether be should be declared to have been duly elected and, the appellant could not get rid of the peti- tion by resigning his seat for whatever reason. In a case of this descrip- tion it is open to the Election Commission to await the result ·of the elec- tion petition, for, if ·the second respondent eventually got a declaration that he himself had been duly elected, there .would be two candidates re- presenting the same constituency at the same time, one declared by the Tribunal to be duly elected at the General Election and the other declared to have been duly elected at the bye-election. Further, it is also conceivable that there may be situations in which the Election Commission may not bold a bye-election at all or may bold it after a delay of 2 or 3 months after the vacancy arises. [493 B, F-H; 494 A-B, E; 495 F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal'No. I of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 19, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 1253of1965. B. Sen, T. Lakshmaiah, M. M. Kshatriya, K. Venkatramaiah, and G. S. Chatterjee, for the appellant. H M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vi11eet Kumar, for respondent No. 2. R. H. Dhebar and S. S. Javali, for respondent No. 3. _) 490 Sl!PllEME COUllT llEPOllTS ( 1967] 2 S.C.ll. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by spocial leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated September 19, 1966 in Writ Petition No. 1253 of 1965. At the last General Election to the Andhra Pradesh Legisla- tive Assembly held in February 1962, the appellant and the 2nd respondent-P. Rajaratna Rao--were the contesting candidates for election from the Kodu- muru constituency in Kurnool District. The result of the elec- tion was announced on February 25, 1962 and the appellant was declared to have been elected by a majority of about 7 ,OCYJ votes. The second respondent thereafter filed an election petition (Election Petition No. 180 of 1962) under s. 81 of the Represen- tation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951), hereinafter called the 'Act' calling in question the election of the appellant on the ground that various corrupt practices had been committed at the election and claiming a two-fold relief namely, that the election of the appellant should be declared to be void and that respondent No. 2 himself should be declared to have been duly elected. After the appellant had filed a written statement, the Election Tribunal, Hyderabad framed twenty-two issues, but the trial of the election petition could not be proceeded with as the appellant filed se~eral inter-locutory applications raising various objections and after they were over-ruled by the Election Tribunal, the appellant filed several- writ petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. During the pen- dency of the election petition the appellant was appointed by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.