AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6.
The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in accepting the nominations of respondent Nos.5 and 6 for the election to the office of Member, Muthukur ZPTC, SPSR Nellore District. It is contended that the Returning Officer should not have accepted the nominations of the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 as there were glaring discrepancies/lacunae in the documents submitted by them.
It is stated by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the list of contesting candidates was published on 26.10.2026, and the present writ petition was filed after publication of such list dated 28.10.2026, therefore, submits that any intervention at this stage would amount to interdicting the election process.
Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 would submit that mistakes are rectifiable under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006. Having regard to the same, after being satisfied with the documents submitted, the returning officer had accepted the nominations and the petitioner should not have any grievance in the said regard.
In the light of the Constitutional bar as envisaged under Article 243ZC & 243-O of the Constitution of India, and since the list of all the contesting candidates has already been published and the correctness or otherwise of the nominations filed and accepted, cannot be gone into by ordering a roving enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and conduct of any enquiry in the said regard would interdict the election process, which is barred under the provisions of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Needless to observe that the petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies available under law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.