KOTLA VIJAYABHASKARA REDDY Vs. RANUKA CHOUDARY
LAWS(APH)-1993-11-19
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
November 02,1993
KOTLA VIJAYABHASKARA REDDY
Appellant
VERSUS
RENUKA CHOUDARY
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
HARI SHANKAR TRIPATHI VS. SHIV HARSH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]K.JAYAMMA VS. E.VENKATESWARLU [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SRINIVAS VS. SAMJIBHAI BHIKA [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MURARKA RADBEY SHYAM KAM KUMAR VS. ROOP SINGH RATHORE [REFERRED TO]
SUBBARAO VS. MEMBER ELECTION TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
ANUP SINGH VS. ABDUL GHANI LACHMAN SINGH M L A [REFERRED TO]
HAR SWARUP VS. BRIJ BHUSAN SARAN [REFERRED TO]
SAHODRABAI RAI VS. RAM SINGH AHARWAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN RAJ VS. SURENDRA KUMAR TAPARIA [REFERRED TO]
K VENKATESWARA RAO VS. BEKKAM NARASIMHA REDDI [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAIN VS. DHUJA RAM [REFERRED TO]
M KAMALAM VS. V A SYED MOHAMMED [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI BASU VS. DEBI GHOSAL [REFERRED TO]
M KARUNANIDHI R RANGASAMI A CHINNADURAI R PERIASAMY A CHINDRASEKHARAN VS. H V HANDE AND OTHRS:C R RAJAPPA:V PERUMAL NAINAR:T P K JAYARAJ:P S MANIAN [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA PRITHIPAL SINGH RAM MEHAR RAJ KUMAR DELHI CATTLE BREEDING FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RAGHUBIR SINGH :UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
U S SASIDHARAN VS. K KARUNAKARAN [REFERRED TO]
Y KRISHNA MURTHY VS. M SIVANNAIDU [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Application No. 356 of 1993 has been filed by the elected candidate (first respondent in the election petititon) for dismissing the election petition in limine on several grounds. Application Nos.408 of 1993 and 531 of 1993 have been filed by the learned Advocate General and Sri Innnaiah Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government for striking of the names of their respective clients viz., respondents 10 to 12 and 15 and 9th respondent from the array of parties in the Election Petition. Relevant facts are as follows: Election Petition No. 1 of 1993 has been filed by one of the defeated candidates, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of the first respondent from 184 Panyam Assembly Constituency to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly was void, also claims a further declaration that the election petitioner as having been duly elected to the Andhra Pradesh Assembly from the said Constituency.
(2.)An election notification was issued by the ninth respondent (Chief Election Commissioner) on 3-3-1993, notifying the process of of election to the Panyam Legislative Constitutency. According to the said notification, 10th March, 1993 was the last date for filing nominations. Scrutiny was to take place on 11th March, 1993. The date for withdrawal of the nominations was fixed as 13-3-1993. Polling date was fixed as 3-4-1993. The election petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 8 filed nominations and contested, seeking election from the said Panyam Constituency. The first respondent was declared as duly elected to the Legislative Assembly on 5-4-1993. The election petitioner filed the election petition for the reliefs mentioned above under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for short "The Act".
(3.)When the election petition was presented in the Registry, it raised the following objections, among others:-
(1) That the election petitioner should explain as to how the petition is in time as the last date for filing the application expired long back.
(2) The petitioner was called upon to state as to how respondents 9 to 28 are proper and necessary parties to the election petition as they are not candidates.
(3) Annexures said to have been filed alongwith the election petition/have not been filed with the required number of copies.
(2.)An election notification was issued by the ninth respondent (Chief Election Commissioner) on 3-3-1993, notifying the process of of election to the Panyam Legislative Constitutency. According to the said notification, 10th March, 1993 was the last date for filing nominations. Scrutiny was to take place on 11th March, 1993. The date for withdrawal of the nominations was fixed as 13-3-1993. Polling date was fixed as 3-4-1993. The election petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 8 filed nominations and contested, seeking election from the said Panyam Constituency. The first respondent was declared as duly elected to the Legislative Assembly on 5-4-1993. The election petitioner filed the election petition for the reliefs mentioned above under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for short "The Act".
(3.)When the election petition was presented in the Registry, it raised the following objections, among others:-
(1) That the election petitioner should explain as to how the petition is in time as the last date for filing the application expired long back.
(2) The petitioner was called upon to state as to how respondents 9 to 28 are proper and necessary parties to the election petition as they are not candidates.
(3) Annexures said to have been filed alongwith the election petition/have not been filed with the required number of copies.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.