AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in fixing 04.01.2012 as the date for holding poll in respect of the advocates practicing in Rajahmundry as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner is a practicing advocate and candidate in the elections notified by respondent No.1. The election was originally scheduled for 30.12.2011 as per the election notification, dated 05.11.2011. The election could not take place in respect of Rajahmundry Bar as ballot papers meant for the said Bar did not reach till 4.30 pm on 30.12.2011. Vide proceedings, dated 02.01.2012, respondent No.1 has fixed 04.01.2012 as the date for holding election. According to the petitioner, under Rule 5(a) of the Rules of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh (for short ''the Rules''), a notification shall be issued with notice of 40 days before the scheduled date of election and that the poll having got postponed, a fresh notification needs to be given with the minimum of 40 days between the date of notification and the date of poll. The petitioner further pleaded that Rule 17 of the Rules under which a re-poll can be held within three days from the date of receipt of complaint has no application.
In my opinion, the instant case will not fall either under Rule 17 or Rule 5(a) of the Rules. On account of a peculiar situation, the poll had to be re-scheduled. It is not in dispute that an election notification shall be issued in conformity with Rule 5(a) of the Rules and as noted above, the poll could not be held due to unexpected exigency. Even in the absence of a Rule governing such a situation, respondent No.1 which has the power and authority to hold elections is empowered to re-schedule the date of poll within such time as is required to enable the results of the entire election to be announced after completion of counting. As the poll in respect of Rajahmundry Bar is linked with the elections for the rest of the Bars in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner cannot insist that there must be a minimum of 40 days'' notice as envisaged under Rule 5(a) of the Rules. At any rate, the petitioner cannot plead any prejudice as he had more than 40 days'' time at his disposal for campaigning.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.229 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.