The Chief Election Commissioner of India vs Yanamala Ramakrishnudu, MLA, Telugu Desam and Others

S.S. Ahmed, C.J.—It is stated by Mr. Sarat Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ petitioner, that he may be permitted to withdraw the main writ petition itself.

The Writ Petition was filed by the writ petitioner (first respondent in writ appeal) for a direction by this Court to respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition to follow and observe the model Code of Conduct for the guidance of the political parties and candidates, issued by the Election Commission of India, during the period of elections, which were scheduled to take place on 1st and 5th December, 1994. An application for interim relief was also filed. The learned single Judge, while declining to pass any interim order, observed that the model Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India would be applicable with effect from the date on which the notification u/s 15 of the Representation of People Act, is published.

Since the learned single Judge had considered it not necessary to pass any interim order, it was not necessary for him to make the above observation, particularly when the other side had, by that time, not been served with notice and was not represented before the Court by any counsel.

Since a request has been made before us by the writ petitioner for permission to withdraw the writ petition, we dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn with the observation that the issue - whether the Model Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India, would be applicable from the date of notification u/s 15 of the Representation of People Act, or from any earlier date - shall be treated to be still open to be decided in an appropriate writ petition, if and when filed. No. costs.

In view of the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn, Writ Appeal No. 1347 of 1994, filed against an interim order, is dismissed subject to the above observations.