Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K. Dhananjeyulu Naidu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 April, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
NJS, J
WP_31036_2023
APHC010594552023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.31036
No. of 2023
Between:-
K.Dhananjeyulu Naidu & Others ..... Petitioners
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi & Others. ..... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms.M.Suguna
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P.for General Administration Department,
Mr.Avinash Desai, Senior Counsel for R1
Mr.D.Satya Siva Darshan,, Standing Counsel
for R2, R4 and R5
****
The Court made the following ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the respondent-authorities authorities issued a Draft Notification merging the Polling Booth No.200 of Kammakandriga Village with Muthapareddy Kandriga Booth No.203, without following the procedure as contemplated under the Representation of the Peoples People Act, 1951.2
NJS, J WP_31036_2023
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr.Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.D.Satya Siva Darshan, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents 2, 4 and 5.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are permanent residents of Kammakandriga, Oruru and Kothaindlu Villages and on the collective representations made by the villagers, the Government established Polling Booth No.200 at Kammakandriga Village about 30 years ago. She submits that all these years, the petitioners and other voters / residents of the said villages are exercising their franchise in the said Polling Booth, without any problems whatsoever. While that being the position, on coming to know that the respondent-authorities are taking steps to merge the said Polling Booth with Polling Booth No.203 of Muthapareddy Kandriga Village, the petitioners made representations and without considering the same, the respondents have issued the Draft Notification merging the existing Polling Booth No.200 of Kammakandriga Village with Polling Booth No.203 of Muthapareddy Kandriga Village. She submits that such an act on the part of the respondents without taking into consideration the representations / objections of the petitioners is not just or tenable and no plausible reasons are forthcoming for shifting / merging of the existing Polling Booth No.200 wherein the villagers are exercising their franchise for the last several decades. She further submits that had the respondents conducted an enquiry and invited 3 NJS, J WP_31036_2023 objections, if any, before issuing the Draft Notification with regard to the merger of the Polling Booths stated above, perhaps they would have dropped the idea of merger / shifting of Polling Booths.
4. The learned counsel further submits that out of 220 voters, who were hitherto exercising their franchise in Polling Booth No.200, about 120 voters are old and senior citizens and some of them are physically challenged persons. She submits that in between Kammakandriga Village, where the Polling Booth No.200 is situated and Muthapareddy Kandriga Village, where the Polling Booth No.203 is situated, there is a water body and the villagers have to cross the same to exercise the franchise in Muthapareddy Kandriga Village in view of the shifting / merger of Polling Booths. She submits that if the respondents approve the Draft Notification and finalize the merger of Polling Booth No.200 of Kammakandriga Village with Polling Booth No.203 of Muthapareddy Kandriga Village, the petitioners would suffer serious prejudice, irreparable loss and they may not even be in a position to exercise their right to franchise. She prays to allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to take necessary action on the representations of the petitioners submitted to the respondent-authorities. The learned counsel also relies on the Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.No.3610 of 2021 in support of her submissions.
5. Mr.Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent while referring to the provisions of the Representation of the 4 NJS, J WP_31036_2023 Peoples Act made submissions, inter alia, to the effect that the shifting of the Polling Booth No.200 of Kammakandriga and merging of the same with another Polling Booth / Station was contemplated in the interest of the voters and the views of the recognized political parties were duly taken into consideration.
6. The learned counsel made further submissions, inter alia, to the effect that the Polling Booth No.200 of Kammakandriga Village is situate in a school building, which was constructed 30 years ago and the same is in a dilapidated condition. In elaboration, he submits that the Executive Engineer of Samagra Shiksha, Chittoor District issued a Building Soundness Certificate in respect of the building in which the Polling Station No.200 referred to above is situate and as the building was constructed 30 years ago and currently not in use since the school was closed nine years ago, it is unsafe to conduct any programmes inside school building. He submits that as per the Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer dated 15.09.2023 based on physical verification, the condition of the school building, is not safe and not sound. He submits that considering the safety of the voters, it was proposed to shift existing Polling Station No.200 to the nearby Polling Station No.201 at MPPS, Muthapareddy Kandriga Village and infact there is a road access available to the voters of old Polling Station No.200 at Kammakandriga Village to reach the new Polling Station No.201 at Muthapareddy Kandriga Village. He also 5 NJS, J WP_31036_2023 submits that the issue with regard to location of Polling Station is purely a question of fact and within the realm of the election authorities and in view of the same as also in view of the settled legal position, exercise of powers by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be warranted. Relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M.Hassan Uzzaman 1 and Challa Ramakrishna Reddy v. Returning Officer, Banaganapalli2, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
8. On an appreciation of the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, the issue is with regard to the shifting of the existing Polling Booth and merging with another Polling Booth, which according to the petitioners has been done without any request from the villagers of the Kammakandriga and other villages that too without inviting objections. It is not in dispute that the existing Polling Booth No.200 referred to above was established 30 years ago and all these years, the same is being utilized during the course of elections. However, due to the condition of the school building wherein the said Polling Booth No.200 is situate, the respondent-authorities felt that it is appropriate to shift the same and merge with the Polling Booth situated in Muthapareddy 1 (1985) 4 SCC 689 2 2000(3) ALD 42 (DB) 6 NJS, J WP_31036_2023 Kandriga Village. To justify their action, the respondents have relied on the Building Soundness Certificate dated 15.09.2023 of the Executive Engineer, Samagra Shiksha, Chittoor District, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"Remarks:
The School Building was constructed on Load Barring Walls and RCC Roof Slab was laid. The buildings are constructed before 30 years and not in usage as the functioning of schools are closed. The Roof Slab ceiling plastering is having cracks and loosen and some of area is fallen at Varandah area at MPPS, Pothularaju Kandriga.
The Roof Slab ceiling plastering is having cracks, at any time it may be fallen at MPPS, Kamma Kandriga.
Conclusion:
Basing on the present physical verification, the condition of both School Buildings may not be safe and not sound for conduct of any activity (School Teaching / Government Programmes) inside the Classrooms without doing Major Repairs."
9. In the light of the observations made by the Executive Engineer in the above referred Certificate, this Court see no reason to find fault with the action of the respondents for shifting / merging the existing Polling Booth No.200 with Polling Booth No.201 at Muthapareddy Kandriga Village. Be that as it may.
10. In W.P.No.3610 of 2021, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Judge was dealing with a matter 7 NJS, J WP_31036_2023 pertaining to shifting of polling booth from one village to another village, the distance between which is 5 k.m., and allowed the writ petition referring to a Circular dated 27.11.2017. The said decision, in the considered opinion of this Court is not applicable to the case on hand, more particularly in the light of the plight of the school building where Polling Booth No.200 is situate. Further, a copy of the said Circular dated 27.11.2017 is not placed before this Court. No provision of Law under the Representation of Peoples Act, if any, violated by the respondents has been pointed out. Therefore, the said judgment is of no aid to the case of the petitioners.
11. On the other hand, the issue with regard to shifting of Polling Booths fell for consideration before a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Challa Ramakrishna Reddy's case referred to above, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition held as follows:
"1. The contention raised in this case is with regard to shifting of polling station Nos.37, 39 and 40 in Koilkuntla Assembly Constituency. Previously, these three polling stations were located at Gramachavadi, Panchayat Satram (Eastern Wing) and Panchayat Satram (Western Wing), but now they have been shifted to Room No.3, VIII B Class, Room No.5, VII A Class and Room No.5 VIII A Class of ZPHS respectively in Owk Village. The question relating to location of polling stations is purely a question of fact and is within the exclusive purview of the authorities conducting the elections, and it is not for this Court to adjudicate upon the said aspects, and in fact the said aspects are not justiceable, more so in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."8
NJS, J WP_31036_2023
12. In Lakshmi Charansen's case referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"22. One of the questions which was debated before us and to which we must now turn, is whether the directions given by the Election Commission to the Chief Electoral Officers have the force of law under the Acts of 1950 and 1951. There is no provision in either of these Acts which would justify the proposition that the directions given by the Election Commission have the force of law. Election laws are self-contained codes. One must look to them for identifying the rights and obligations of the parties, whether they are private citizens or public officials. Therefore, in the absence of a provision to that effect, it would not be correct to equate with law,' the directions given by the Election Commission to the Chief Electoral Officers. The Election Commission is, of course, entitled to act ex debito justitiae, in the sense that, it can take steps or direct that steps be taken over and above those which it is under an obligation to take under the law. It is, therefore, entitled to issue directions to the Chief Electoral Officers. Such directions are binding upon the latter but, their violation cannot create rights and obligations unknown to the election law. To take a simple example, if the Election Commission issues a directive to a Chief Electoral Officer to invite leaders of political parties for a meeting to consider their grievances pertaining to the 21 electoral roll, the failure to hold such a meeting cannot be equated with the failure to comply with the provision of a law."
13. In the light of the above stated factual and legal position and the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Division Bench referred to supra, this Court is not inclined to concur with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 30.04. 2024 BLV 9 NJS, J WP_31036_2023 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.31036 of 2023 Date: 30.04.2024 BLV