AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P. Hema Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4 and Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.6.
The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of the respondents in not considering the representations of the petitioner dated 29-09-2026 and 09-10-2026.
It is contended that the petitioner entered into the lease deed dated 12-02-2024 with respondent No. 6 pursuant to the tender issued by respondent No. 4 on 24-03-2023. The petitioner was declared the successful bidder, and the said lease was for a period of five years from the date of handing over the premises. Accordingly a lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. However, subsequently the subject premiseswas identified by the Election authorities as polling booth. The 6th respondent port authority refusing to the said proposal addressed a letter dated 27-02-2024 to the authorities seeking de-notification of the subject premises from the State Government use. The said representation was not considered. Subsequently the proceedings dated 13-03-2024 were passed by the Electoral Registration Officer stating that polling stations had already been notified in respect of the subject premises and that the petitioner's request would be considered after the post-election. Even in the ensuing Municipal elections, the Port Authority has rejected the request of the Electoral Registration Officer to continue the subject property as polling station, since it has already been leased out. The petitioner had also addressed a letter dated 29-09-2026 to the Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District to make alternate arrangements.
Learned Senior Counsel Sri O. Manohar Reddy appearing for the petitioner would submit that if the Government is of the view that in connection with an election any premises are needed or likely to be needed for the purpose of being used as polling stations for storage of ballot boxes, voting machines and poll related material, the Government may by order in writing make a requisition such premises. In the facts of the present case, the property cannot be considered as the Government property as the same has been leased out to the petitioner, a private enterprise.
It is contended that the petitioner had already let out the property for being used as a function hall for performing wedding ceremonies, social and cultural functions etc. In the light of the same, since the dates for functions and celebrations have already been scheduled respectively by the respective customers, in the said circumstances in the ensuing elections if the subject property is notified as polling stations, the petitioner will be put to severe loss and financial hardship as it has already undertook to provide the premises on hire. In the light of the same, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner had already approached the respondents for de-notification of the subject premises and prays for consideration of the request of the petitioner forthwith.
Considering the exigency as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders forthwith on the representation of the petitioner dated 29-09-2026 and 09-10-2026, taking into consideration the earlier proceedings of the Electoral Registration Officer, dated 13-03-2024, nor later than one (01) week from the date of receipt of the order.
With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.