IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

WRIT APPEAL Nos.343, 348, 351, 358, 359 and 371 of 2021

(Taken up through video conferencing)

.. Appellant

W.A.No.343 of 2021

Jonnala Rammohan Reddy, S/o Venkata Subba Reddy, aged 62 years, R/o 4-49, Devarapalli, Thotlavallur Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh -521 163.

Versus

Janasena Party, a registered Political Party, Rep. by its Secretary, Chillapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged 50 years, R/o 8-58, Bhargavapeta, Mangalagiri, Guntur District- 522 503, and others.

Counsel for the appellant	:	Mr. V.R.N. Prashanth<br>for M/s. Indus Law Firm
Counsel for respondent No.1	:	Mr. V. Venugopala Rao
Counsel for respondent No.2	:	Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advocate<br>Mr. S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar
Counsel for respondents 3 & 4	:	Mr. S. Sri Ram, Advocate General

.. Respondents

W.A.No.348 of 2021

The State Election Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission, 1 st Floor, New HODs Building, M.G. Road, Vijayawada, Rep., by its Secretary, Krishna District, Vijayawada-520010.

.. Appellant

Versus

Janasena Party, a registered Political Party, Rep., by its Secretary, Chillapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged

about 50 years, R/o 8-589, Bhargavapeta, Mangalagiri, Guntur -522503, and others.

.. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant	:	Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advocate<br>Mr. S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar
Counsel for respondent No.1	:	Mr. V. Venugopala Rao
Counsel for respondents 2 & 3	:	Mr. S. Sri Ram, Advocate General
Counsel for respondents 4 to 7	:	Mr. G. Siva Prasad Reddy

W.A.No.351 of 2021

Mandawa Deydeepya, D/o Surendranath Benarji, Aged about 26 years, R/o D.No.1- 78-2, Sivapuram Ventapragada Village and Mandal, Krishna District, A.P. - 521 263.

Versus

.. Appellant

Janasena Party, a registered Political Party, Rep., by its Secretary, Chillapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o 8-589, Bhargavapeta, Mangalagiri, Guntur District-522 503, and others.

.. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant	:	Mr. G.R. Sudhakar
Counsel for respondent No.1	:	Mr. V. Venugopala Rao
Counsel for respondent No.2	:	Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advocate<br>Mr. S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar
Counsel for respondents 3 & 4	:	Mr. S. Sri Ram, Advocate General

W.A.No.358 of 2021

Vemuri Suresh, S/o Rama Rao, Age 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.23-10, Saipuram Colony, Gollapudi, Krishna District- 521 225.

.. Appellant

Versus

Janasena Party, a registered political party, Rep., by its Secretary, Chillapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao, Aged

about 50 years, R/o 8-589, Bhargavapeta, Mangalagiri, Guntur District- 522 503, and others.

.. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant	:	Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy
Counsel for respondent No.1	:	Mr. V. Venugopala Rao
Counsel for respondent No.2	:	Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advocate<br>Mr. S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar
Counsel for respondents 3 & 4		: Mr. S. Sri Ram, Advocate General

W.A.No.359 of 2021

Bheemavarapu Sri Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o Devarapalli village, Thotavalluru Mandal, Krishna District.

.. Appellant

Versus

Janasena Party, a registered Political Party, Rep., by its Secretary, Chillapalli Srinivasa Rao, R/o 8-589, Bhargavapeta, Mangalagiri, Guntur -522 503, and others.

.. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant	:	Mr. N. Srihari
Counsel for respondent No.1	:	Mr. V. Venugopala Rao
Counsel for respondent No.2	:	Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advocate<br>Mr. S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar
Counsel for respondents 3 & 4		: Mr. S. Sri Ram, Advocate General

W.A.No.371 of 2021

Naandipu Baby Shalini, W/o Naandipu Venkata Nancharaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Kancharla Naanipuram, Pasumarru Mandal, Krishna District.

.. Appellant

Versus

Janasena Party, a registered Political Party, Rep., by its Secretary, Chillapalli Srinivasa Rao, R/o 8-589, Bhargavapeta, Mangalagiri, Guntur -522 503, and others.

.. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant	:<br>Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri
Counsel for respondent No.1	:<br>Mr. V. Venugopala Rao
Counsel for respondent No.2	:<br>Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advocate<br>Mr. S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar
Counsel for respondents 3 & 4	:<br>Mr. S. Sri Ram, Advocate General
Date of hearing	: 05.08.2021
Date of Judgment	: 16.09.2021

COMMON JUDGMENT

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

All these writ appeals are preferred against a common judgment and order dated 21.05.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.7847 of 2021 and 7778 of 2021 insofar as it pertains to W.P.No.7847 of 2021.

2. W.A.No.348 of 2021 is presented by the State Election Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission (for short, 'SEC'), the first respondent in W.P.No.7847 of 2021. The other appeals, viz., W.A.Nos.343 of 2021, 351 of 2021, 358 of 2021, 359 of 2021 and 371 of 2021 are preferred by individuals who were not parties to the writ petition, by seeking leave to appeal, which being not opposed was granted vide separate orders dated 05.08.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in respective appeals.

3. All the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals,

the materials on record in W.A.No.348 of 2021 will be taken into consideration.

4. In exercise of powers conferred under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India, Sections 151(1) and 179(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'Panchayat Raj Act'), a Notification No.1503/SEC-B1/2021 dated 01.04.2021 was issued by the SEC, resuming the election process of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies (for short, 'MPTCs') and Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies (for short, 'ZPTCs') from the stage where it was stopped earlier and calling upon the registered voters of all Territorial Constituencies of MPTCs and ZPTCs to elect their respective Members, except those specified in the Annexure enclosed thereto. The Election Schedule for the resumed election process of MPTCs and ZPTCs was specified in the Annexure appended to the Notification in terms of Section 201-A(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006 (for short, 'Panchayat Raj Rules').

5. Challenging the aforesaid Notification No.1503/SEC-B1/2021 dated 01.04.2021, W.P.No.7778 of 2021 was filed by one Varla Ramaiah contending that while issuing the said Notification, Model Code of Conduct was not imposed four weeks before the notified date of polling as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020, and accordingly, praying for a direction to the SEC to issue a fresh notification scheduling the date of poll of MPTCs and ZPTCs by re-imposing the Model Code of Conduct four weeks prior to the notified date of poll.

6. W.P.No.7847 of 2021 was filed by Janasena Party, which is a registered political party, represented by its Secretary, Chillapalli Srinivasa Rao, challenging the very same Notification dated 01.04.2021 on the

ground that resumption of election process from the stage where it was stopped without issuing fresh notification is illegal and arbitrary. It was also mentioned that the writ petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.4506 of 2021 seeking a direction to issue fresh Notification.

7. At this stage, it will be appropriate to extract the aforesaid Notification, which reads as under:

"A.P. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

1 st Floor, New HODs Building, M.G. Road, Vijayawada -520 010.

NOTIFICATION

No.1503/SEC-B1/2021 Date: 01.04.2021

WHEREAS, the State Election Commission issued Notification No.68/SEC-B1/2020, dated 07.03.2020 for conduct of ordinary elections to Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTCs) and Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies (ZPTCs) in the State;

AND WHEREAS, the elections process was completed up to the stage of "Publication of Final List of Contesting Candidates" on 14.03.2020;

AND WHEREAS, the State Election Commission ordered that all further election process shall be stopped forthwith and the election process shall be continued after (6) weeks from 15.03.2020 or after the threat of Covid-19 recedes, whichever is earlier, vide Notification No.68/SEC-B1/2020, dated 15.03.2020;

AND WHEREAS, the State Election Commission further ordered that the paused election process shall remain continue

until further orders and decided to resume the paused election process from the stage where it was stopped when the situation conducive for conduct of elections is restored vide Notification No.68/SEC-B1/2020, dated 06.05.2020;

AND WHEREAS, the State Election Commission reviewed the situation and conducted ordinary elections to Gram Panchayats in the State in 4 Phases between 09.02.2021 and 21.02.2021 and thereafter conducted the adjourned election process of Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats from the stage where it was stopped on 15.03.2020 and completed it on 18.03.2021;

AND WHEREAS, the State Election Commission has convened a meeting with the Chief Secretary to Government and other senior officials of Police, Panchayat Raj and Health, Medical & Family Welfare Departments on 01.04.2021 and took stock of the situation;

AND WHEREAS, the Government in its Letter No.12/CS/2021, dtd. 01.04.2021 informed the State Election Commission that the preparedness for resumption of elections to MPTCs/ZPTCs have been ascertained from the District Administration and that they are fully prepared for conduct of paused elections to MPTCs/ZPTCs and requested the Commission to consider early resumption of the paused election process of MPTCs and ZPTCs from the stage where it was stopped and issue Notification accordingly;

AND WHEREAS, the State Election Commission also convened a Video Conference on 01.04.2021 with the

Collectors & District Election Authorities, Superintendents/ Commissioners of Police and Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Praja Parishads and reviewed their preparedness for conduct of elections to MPTCs and ZPTCs and the Commission got the feedback from them that the District Administration is ready in all respects to conduct elections of MPTCs and ZPTCs;

AND WHEREAS, in continuation to elections held for Gram Panchayats and Urban Local Bodies recently, the State Election Commission has now decided to resume the election process of MPTCs and ZPTCs from the stage where it was stopped on 15.03.2020 and complete the process;

NOW, THEREFORE, the State Election Commission, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India, Sections 151(1) and 179(1) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act 13 of 1994), the State Election Commission, Andhra Pradesh, hereby, resumes the election process of MPTCs and ZPTCs from the stage where it was stopped earlier and calls upon the registered voters of all Territorial Constituencies of Mandal Praja Parishads (MPTCs) and of all Territorial Constituencies of Zilla Praja Parishads (ZPTCs) to elect their respective Members, except those specified in the Annexure enclosed.

Further, under Section 201-A(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 4 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006, the Election Schedule for the resumed election process of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTCs) and Zilla Parishad Territorial

Constituencies (ZPTCs) is specified in the Annexure appended to this Notification.

State Election Commissioner"

8. The Annexure appended to the Notification dated 01.04.2021 reads as follows:

"ANNEXURE

(Notification No.1503/SEC.B1/2021, Date: 01.04.2021) ELECTIONS TO MPTCs/ZPTCs -2021

ELECTION SCHEDULE

1.	Issue of Notification by the State<br>Election Commission for resumption<br>of adjourned election process of<br>MPTCs/ZPTCs	01.04.2021
2.	Conduct of Poll, wherever necessary	08.04.2021
		(From 7 AM to 5 PM)
3.	Re-poll, if any	09.04.2021
		(From 7 AM to 5 PM)
4.	Counting of Votes	10.04.2021
		(From 8 AM onwards)
5.	Declaration of Results	Soon after completion
		of counting of votes

Sd/- xxxxxxxx State Election Commissioner Andhra Pradesh

Note:

• 1. Election shall not be conducted to any of the MPTCs/ZPTCs for which conduct of election is stayed by any Court of law or holding of election is not feasible due to administrative/ legal impediments.
• 2. Election shall not be conducted in case of Territorial Constituencies, where death of a contesting candidate set

up by a Recognised/Registered Political Party with a reserved symbol occurred and a Notification will be issued for this separately."

9. On the very same day, a press note dated 01.04.2021 was issued imposing Model Code of Conduct with immediate effect in the rural areas of the entire State to be in force till completion of the election process.

10. It is relevant to state at this juncture that the SEC had earlier issued a Notification No.68/SEC-B1/2020 dated 07.03.2020 in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India and Sections 151(1) and 179(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act, in respect of holding of MPTCs and ZPTCs elections. By the said Notification, the registered voters in all MPTCs, except those located in Yetapaka Mandal Praja Parishad in East Godavari District, and also the registered voters in all ZPTCs, were called upon to elect their respective Members. The Election Schedule for conduct of elections to the said MPTCs/ZPTCs was specified in the Annexure appended to the Notification, under Section 201-A (2) of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 4 of Panchayat Raj Rules. The SEC had also issued Notifications No.76/SEC-F1/2020-1 & 2 dated 09.03.2020, 77/SEC-F1/2020-1 & 2 dated 09.03.2020, 78/SEC-F1/2020-1 & 2 dated 09.03.2020 and 79/SEC-F2/2020 dated 09.03.2020 for conduct of ordinary elections to 12 Municipal Corporations and 75 Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats in the State. The SEC had also announced the schedule on 07.03.2020 for conduct of ordinary elections to Gram Panchayats in two phases.

11. Thereafter, the SEC had issued a Notification dated 15.03.2020, relevant portion of which reads as under:

"Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 243K and 243ZA of the Constitution of India, the State Election Commission, hereby, order that –

1. all further election process in connection with conduct of elections to MPTCs and ZPTCs in pursuance of State Election Commission's Notification No.68/SEC-B1/2020, Dt. 07.03.2020 shall be stopped forthwith;

2. all further election process in connection with conduct of elections to Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats in pursuance of State Election Commission's Notification Nos.76/SEC-F1/2020-1 & 2, Dt.09.03.2020; 77/SEC-F1/2020-1 & 2, Dt.09.03.2020; 78/SEC-F1/2020-1 & 2, Dt.09.03.2020; and 79/SEC-F2/2020, Dt.09.03.2020 shall be stopped forthwith;

3. the election process of MPTCs, ZPTCs and Urban Local Bodies will be continued after (6) weeks from now or after the threat of COVID-19 recedes, whichever is earlier; and

4. the schedules already announced for Gram Panchayat elections are kept in abeyance until further orders."

12. A perusal of the above Notification dated 15.03.2020 will go to show that on due consideration of the emerging challenges posed by Corona Virus spread, the SEC had taken a view that continuing with the election schedule may be detrimental and harmful to public health at large and, accordingly, decided to exercise its plenary powers under Articles 243K and 243ZA of the Constitution of India, to put on hold the election process of MPTCs and ZPTCs, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats with immediate effect for a period of

(6) weeks or till the threat of spread of Covid-19 is arrested or declined and normalcy is restored facilitating public gatherings for conduct of elections. It was specifically stated therein that the election process will be continued from the stage where it is stopped in respect of MPTCs/ZPTCs and Urban Local Bodies. It was also stated that schedules already announced for Gram Panchayat elections are kept in abeyance until further orders.

13. The Notification dated 15.03.2020 was challenged by the State of Andhra Pradesh by filing a writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was registered as W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 18.03.2020, while declining to interfere with the decision of the Election Commissioner, made certain observations including one on imposition of Model Code of Conduct. It will be appropriate to extract the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is as follows:

"The petitioner – State of Andhra Pradesh has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission (for short, the 'Election Commission') in issuing a Notification dated 15.03.2020 postponing the elections for the local bodies such as Panchayats and Municipal Bodies by six weeks or any other date on the ground of spread of Corona virus (COVID 19).

We do not see any reason why this Court should interfere with the decision of the respondent - Election Commission to postpone the elections particularly since the postponement is due to possible outbreak of Corona virus (COVID 19) epidemic

in the country. We therefore decline to interfere with the said decision of the Election Commission.

However, it appears that one of the grievances raised by the petitioner – State needs to be addressed. According to Mr. ANS Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State, a large number of developmental activities have been suspended due to the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct for the aforesaid Elections in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Mr. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General, submits that the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct would not be justified if the Elections are postponed.

We see much substance in the above submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General. We therefore direct that the Election Commission shall impose the Model Code of Conduct four weeks before the notified date of polling.

Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent – Election Commission, submits that the State of Andhra Pradesh is not entitled to move this Court by way of filing writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

We are not inclined to go into this question in the present writ petition due to the emergent circumstances in which the same is filed. The said question is left open for determination in an appropriate case.

Mr. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioner – State, submits that the Election Commission was not entitled to postpone the elections without appropriate

consultation with the State Government. He relies upon the decision of this Court in Kishansing Tomar Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others – (2006) 8 SCC 352.

According to Mr. Naphade, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent – Election Commission, the decision in Kishansing Tomar (Supra) does not require prior consultation.

This is also not a controversy which we consider appropriate for decision in this case in view of the order we propose to pass.

We direct that since the Election Commission has already taken the decision to postpone the Elections, there shall be a post decisional consultation with the State of Andhra Pradesh before the next date is notified by the Election Commission. The Model Code of Conduct for the elections shall be reimposed four weeks before the date of polling.

We further direct that the present development activities which have already been undertaken shall not be interrupted till the Model Code of Conduct is reimposed.

However, if the State Government wishes to undertake any fresh developmental activities, they shall do so only with the prior permission of the respondent – Election Commission.

In no circumstance, the State Government shall be prevented from taking necessary steps to curb the menace of Corona Virus (COVID 19) epidemic.

The instant writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed

Writ Petition (C) Diary No.10157/2020

Taken up on Board.

of.

Heard Mr. A.K. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.

The instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed in Writ Petition (C) No.437/2020.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of."

14. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, elections to the Gram Panchayats and to Urban Local Bodies, such as Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats/Municipal Corporations, have been conducted and the elected bodies are functioning. There had been legal challenges to holding of such elections and a narration of events culminating in declaration of results will be discussed at a more appropriate place.

15. A learned single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 06.04.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.7778 of 2021, had granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid Notification dated 01.04.2021 pending disposal of the writ petition. The said order was challenged by the SEC by way of an appeal numbered as W.A.No.224 of 2021. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 07.04.2021, having observed that while granting the interim order, the learned single Judge had virtually allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and by balancing the competing equities, had directed that while poll can be conducted on 08.04.2021, counting of

votes shall not take place and consequently, result of elections shall also not be declared till disposal of the writ petition.

16. The learned single Judge, while deciding the W.P.Nos.7778 of 2021 and 7847 of 2021, had formulated the following points for determination:

"1. Whether Sri Varla Ramaiah, petitioner in W.P.No.7778 of 2021 espoused any public cause in the writ petition. If so, whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without invoking the public interest litigation can be decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in view of Rule 7-A of Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977 and Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2015?

2. Whether the State Election Commissioner/first respondent infringed or invaded the statutory or constitutional right of Sri Varla Ramaiah, petitioner in W.P.No.7778 of 2021 by issuing Notification No.1503/SEC-B1/2021 dated 01.04.2021?

3. Whether Notification No.1503/SEC-B1/2021 dated 01.04.2021 is contrary to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.437 of 2020 dated 18.03.2020?

4. Whether the entire notification for election of MPTCs and ZPTCs is liable to be set aside in view of the report submitted by respondent No.1 to the Central Government as claimed by the petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021? If so, whether the notification No.68/SEC-B1/2020 dated 07.03.2020 is liable to be struck down and a direction be issued to respondent No.1 to issue notification for election to MPTCs and

ZPTCs afresh by following the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court?"

17. The learned single Judge answered point No.1 in favour of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7778 of 2021 holding that being a citizen and elector of the State, he can be said to have locus standi to challenge the Notification when it is alleged that the same is in violation of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and when he had asserted that the action of the respondents would impede free and fair election.

18. Point No.2 was answered against the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7778 of 2021, holding that though the Court had held in point No.1 that the said writ petitioner was entitled to maintain the writ petition as the right to vote and right to elect a representative in the governance is a constitutional right, he has to plead and prove that such right is invaded or infringed, but he had failed to plead and prove that any such was right was invaded or infringed.

19. While considering point No.3, learned single Judge had observed that though elections for Urban and Rural Local Bodes had attained finality after completion of entire election process, just because no one had raised objection about non-compliance of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 18.03.2020 in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020, relief cannot be refused to the writ petitioners if they are otherwise entitled to claim the same for the reason that the Court cannot perpetuate an illegality. The learned single Judge held that the Court can interfere with the process of election by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when the SEC had issued Notification to overreach the order of the Court and when the act of the SEC is totally contrary to the procedure. The learned single Judge had

further observed that though Model Code of Conduct has no statutory basis and is not enforceable in law, it is judicially recognized. The learned single Judge held that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.03.2020 in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020 is clear that the SEC was directed to re-impose the Model Code of Conduct four weeks before the notified date of polling and the Election Commissioner, who took charge of the office on 01.04.2021, took a decision to resume the election process of ZPTCs and MPTCs without looking into the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and such sudden narcissistic decision of the State Election Commissioner would cause irreversible consequences and irreparable injury to the candidates of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021 to participate in the election process. Accordingly, the learned single Judge held that the impugned Notification was issued in deliberate and intentional violation of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020, which the learned single Judge held to be in the nature of direction issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

20. On Point No.4, the learned single Judge held that there was no ground to cancel the entire election process and to direct issuance of fresh Notification for elections and accordingly, the point was answered against the writ petitioners.

21. The learned single Judge had summed up the findings recorded by him and it is appropriate that the same are extracted hereinbelow:

"(1) The petitioner in W.P.No.7778 of 2021 has got litigational competency and that the writ petition in the present form is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

single Judge of this Court is competent to decide the issue, since the petitioner did not espouse the public cause.

(2) The petitioner in W.P.No.7778 of 2021 has failed to establish existence of legal right in him either statutory or constitutional and it's infringement or invasion or threatened infringement or invasion and thereby, not entitled to claim writ of mandamus.

(3) Article 243-O of the Constitution of India is not an absolute bar to interfere with the process of election for MPTCs and ZPTCs.

(4) The petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021 pleaded and proved that the right of contesting candidates of the Janasena Party (political party) is infringed or invaded, thereby entitled to claim Writ of Mandamus, as the notification was issued in utter disregard of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P (Civil) No.437 of 2020 dated 18.03.2020.

(5) Notification No.1503/SEC-B1/2021 dated 01.04.2021 issued by the State Election Commissioner is declared as illegal as the same was issued to scuttle the level play field of candidates of Janasena Party or retard the progress of free and fair election and contrary to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) No.437 of 2020."

22. In view of the findings recorded, as noted above, the learned single Judge, while dismissing W.P.No.7778 of 2021, had party allowed W.P.No.7847 of 2021, declaring the Notification No.1503/SEC-B1/2021 dated 01.04.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the direction issued

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020, and accordingly, set aside the same. While declining to order election process afresh for MPTCs and ZPTCs in the State from the stage of nominations, the learned single Judge had directed the SEC to issue notification afresh resuming the election process for MPTCs and ZPTCs from where it was stopped, by re-imposing Model Code of Conduct strictly adhering to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020.

23. In W.A.No.348 of 2021, this Court, by order dated 25.06.2021, had stayed the operation of the order of the learned single Judge directing the SEC to issue notification afresh resuming the election process for MPTCs and ZPTCs and at the same time, made it clear that counting of ballots in respect of the aforesaid elections shall not take place and consequently, result of elections shall also not be declared till disposal of the appeal.

24. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.348 of 2021, has submitted that by the order dated 18.03.2020 in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, took note of the concern of the State that if elections are postponed by six weeks and it is to commence again after six weeks or whatever further period of time and if the Model Code of Conduct continues to hold the field in the interregnum, the State may be disabled from carrying on its regular development works and in that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that whenever elections are going to be re-notified, Model Code of Conduct is to be re-imposed four weeks prior to the notified polling date. It is submitted that though the SEC had earlier decided to hold the elections for MPTCs, ZPTCS, Municipal Bodies and Gram Panchayats in a

composite manner, as would be evident from the election schedule filed at page 144 of the writ appeal papers, due to long passage of time intervened by Covid-19 pandemic, the SEC opined that it will re-start the election process with the elections of Gram Panchayats, which were to be Stage-III elections according to earlier election schedule and, accordingly, the Gram Panchayat elections were notified by Notification dated 08.01.2021, fixing the first polling date on 05.02.2021 and imposing Model Code of Conduct for a period of four weeks. It is submitted that it is not the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that before the polling date of each and every election, Model Code of Conduct for four weeks will have to be imposed and what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed is that when the election process is resumed, Model Code of Conduct for a period of four weeks prior to the date of poll has to be imposed. It is submitted that the learned single Judge was in error in holding that the Notification dated 01.04.2021 had scuttled the level playing field to the contesting candidates of Janasena Party, when all the political parties were in identical situation. With the dismissal of W.P.No.7778 of 2021, wherein plea of violation of Model Code of Conduct, as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was taken, there was no occasion for the learned single Judge to have embarked upon a journey to find out whether the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was complied with in a writ petition where no such plea was raised. Drawing attention of the Court to the last paragraph of internal page No.73 and last paragraph of internal page No.75 of the judgment under appeal, he points out that sweeping adverse personal remarks have been made against the State Election Commissioner, which are wholly unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the same may be expunged. It is submitted that the learned

single Judge unjustifiably found fault with the Election Commissioner in issuing the Notification dated 01.04.2021 on the date of assumption of office, overlooking the fact that the previous Election Commissioner had charioted the elections to Gram Panchayats and Municipal Bodies, which came to be concluded on 21.02.2021 and 15.03.2021, respectively. It is also submitted by Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy that about Rs.160 crores had been spent for the purpose of conducting elections to MPTCs and ZPTCs.

25. Mr. G. Siva Prasada Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 7 in W.A.No.348 of 2021, who are contesting candidates and who are impleaded in the appeal on their applications being not objected, adopts the arguments of Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy.

26. Mr. V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.343 of 2021, while adopting the arguments of Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, submits that the learned single Judge ought not to have cancelled the elections already conducted without there being even a single candidate being arrayed in representative capacity and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

27. Mr. G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.351 of 2021, Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.358 of 2021, Mr. N. Srihari, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.359 of 2021 and Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.371 of 2021, have adopted the arguments of Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy.

28. Mr. V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021 (Janasena Party), submits that as two writ petitions were taken up for consideration together and as he had submitted with regard to violation of Model Code of Conduct during the

course of submissions, the learned single Judge had not committed any error in holding that the SEC acted illegally in issuing the impugned Notification dated 01.04.2021 in violation of the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020. He submits that it is evident that the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not adhered to while issuing the Notification dated 01.04.2021 and, therefore, no interference is called for with regard to the judgment under challenge.

29. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

30. The five year term of the office of the previous Gram Panchayats had expired on 01.08.2018, that of MPTCs and ZPTCs on 03.07.2019 and 04.07.2019, respectively. The five year term of the office of the previous Urban Local Bodies had expired on 02.07.2019. The administration of the Gram Panchayats, Urban Local Bodies, MPTCs and ZPTCs were looked after by Special Officers appointed by the Government after expiry of the term.

31. At this stage, it will be appropriate to take note of the developments subsequent to passing of the order dated 18.03.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020, including the various litigations that were commenced assailing the election process.

32. Subsequent to the order dated 18.03.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020, after consultation with the State Government on 28.10.2020 and also after having consultation with 11 political parties (six political parties did not attend and did not convey their views), a Notification dated 17.11.2020 was issued by the SEC stating that it has decided to hold elections to the Gram Panchayats in the

month of February, 2021, and that actual schedule would be finalized with due consultation with the State Government and thereafter only the election schedule would be notified. For reasons of administrative efficacy and convenience, the Government was, however, requested to take necessary preparatory action.

33. The aforesaid Notification dated 17.11.2020 issued by the SEC was put to challenge by the State of Andhra Pradesh by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.No.22900 of 2020. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 29.12.2020 enabling the State Government to submit a written version enclosing all relevant material in respect of its pleas and the instructions/guidelines issued by the Union of India pertaining to Covid-19, within a period of 3 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, for consideration of the SEC and for taking appropriate action, after giving opportunity to the officials concerned of the State Government on submission of the said written version. For undertaking the consultation process, it was left open to the SEC to fix a venue and time so as to enable the representatives of the State Government, who were not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the Government, to attend the consultation process.

34. Perusal of the said order dated 29.12.2020 would go to show that the principal contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner was that the decision taken, vide Notification dated 17.11.2020, to hold the elections in the month of February, 2021, was contrary to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020 dated 18.03.2020, as in terms of the said order, it was incumbent on the part of the SEC to have consulted the State Government before the next date was notified by the SEC, but such an exercise of consultation was not

undertaken. It was further contended that in view of the decision taken by the Union of India to administer vaccine for Corona virus, the entire State Government machinery would have to be deployed and it would be difficult for the State Government to deploy its employees for the election process.

35. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction dated 29.12.2020 passed in W.P.No.22900 of 2020, the views of the Government on conduct of elections to Panchayat institutions were forwarded by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, to the Secretary of the SEC, vide letter dated 07.01.2021. The Election Commissioner had also met with a delegation of the State Government, headed by the Chief Secretary, on 08.01.2021. Thereafter, on the same day, the Election Commissioner issued the order dated 08.01.2021 deciding to hold the elections of Gram Panchayats, commencing from 23.01.2021 and completing the same by 17.02.2021.

36. The aforesaid order dated 08.01.2021 was issued by the SEC seeking to justify holding of elections to the Gram Panchayats in view of the request made by the State Government for postponement of the elections. A schedule for holding ordinary elections to the Gram Panchayats in four phases was also published in terms of which Election Notification is to be issued for Phase-I on 23.01.2021, for phase-II on 27.01.2021, for Phase-III on 31.01.2021 and for Phase-IV on 04.02.2021. Conduct of poll, wherever necessary, was fixed on 05.02.2021, 09.02.2021, 13.02.2021 and 17.02.2021, for Phases I, II, III and IV, respectively.

37. The order dated 08.01.2021 was put to challenge in W.P.No.1158 of 2021. A learned single Judge of this Court, by interim order dated 11.01.2021, had suspended the order dated 08.01.2021 on the ground that the Notification was issued without there being consultation with the State Government in terms of the order dated 18.03.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020 and the order of this Court in W.P.No.22900 of 2020 and that the SEC had failed to consider the inputs furnished by the Government objectively and that decision to conduct elections would hamper the vaccination programme to contain Covid-19. Challenging the said interim order dated 11.01.2021, a writ appeal, being W.A.No.24 of 2021, was filed by the SEC and a Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 21.01.2021, had allowed the said writ appeal, setting aside the interim order dated 11.01.2021 and observing that the parties would make all endeavour to ensure that both the election and vaccination programmes, being of vital importance for the people, are conducted smoothly and successfully.

38. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 21.01.2021 passed in W.A.No.24 of 2021, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1520 of 2021 was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by an order dated 25.01.2021, had dismissed the said Special Leave Petition.

39. Thereafter, Notification No.30/SEC-B2/2021 dated 25.01.2021 was issued by the SEC, re-scheduling Phase-I Gram Panchayat elections which were notified vide Notification No.30/SEC-B2/2021 dated 23.01.2021, as Phase-IV of Gram Panchayat elections. As a consequence thereof, PhaseII, Phase-III and Phase-IV Gram Panchayat elections were to become Phase-I, Phase-II and Phase-III, respectively.

40. In terms of Election Schedule for Phase-IV issued along with the aforesaid Notification dated 25.01.2021, date of issue of Election Notice by the Returning Officer was fixed as 10.02.2021 and conduct of poll, wherever necessary, was scheduled on 21.02.2021. While counting of votes was fixed on 21.02.2021, declaration of results was to take place soon after the completion of counting of votes.

41. With the deck cleared for holding of Gram Panchayat elections, poll process was completed and after declaration of result of election, the first meeting of the Gram Panchayats was convened on 03.04.2021 and thereafter, elected bodies started functioning.

42. The SEC had also issued Notification No.581/SEC-F2/2021, dated 15.02.2021, stating therein that on review of the situation, it had decided that the situation is conducive for resumption of paused election process of Urban Local Bodies from the stage where it was stopped on 15.03.2020. It was also stated therein that the election process was completed upto the stage of "Scrutiny of Nominations" on 14.03.2020, and accordingly, it was notified that the SEC, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 243-ZA of the Constitution of India, resumes the election process from the stage of "Withdrawal of Candidature" in respect of the Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats specified in the Annexure appended to the Notification and called upon the registered voters of the Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats specified in the Annexure appended to the Notification, to elect Members of their respective Wards. The election programme was also notified, which is as follows:

1.	Date<br>of<br>Commencement<br>of	02.03.2021<br>(Tuesday)
	Withdrawal of Candidature	(From 11:00 AM to 3:00
		PM)
2	Last<br>date<br>for<br>Withdrawal<br>of	03.03.2021<br>(Wednesday)
	Candidature	(Not later than 3:00 PM)
3	Date<br>of<br>Publication<br>of<br>List<br>of	03.03.2021 (Wednesday)
	Contesting Candidates	(After 3:00 PM)
4	Date of Poll	10.03.2021 (Wednesday)
		(From 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM)
5	Date of Re-poll, if any	13.03.2021 (Saturday)
		(From 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM)
6	Date of Counting	14.03.2021 (Sunday)
		(From 8:00 AM onwards)

43. The aforesaid Notification dated 15.02.2021 was challenged by filing a public interest litigation petition, being W.P.(PIL).No.51 of 2021, contending that the span of election programme has been reduced from 27 days to 15 days and that in view of gap between stoppage and resumption of election process, there may be some instances where some candidates may have died or some candidates may not be any longer interested to be in the fray and also fresh aspirants would not be allowed to file their nominations. The plea of reduction of time span from 27 days to 15 days was sought to be raised on the ground that the Election Commissioner had sent a letter to the Government on 06.09.2017 for taking a decision for reducing the span of election period from existing 27 days to 20 days by making necessary amendments and that before any consideration was made, span of election period was reduced from 27 days to 15 days. In view of retrospective substitution of Section 33(a),

(b), (c) and (d) by Andhra Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2020, prescribing the schedule of election and the same being not challenged, this Court held that there was no merit in the contention with regard to reduction of the period of election programme. Finding no merit, this Court dismissed the said public interest litigation by a judgment and order dated 01.03.2021.

44. On 15.02.2021 itself, the SEC had issued Notification No.578/SEC-F1/2021-1 for conduct of ordinary elections to Municipal Corporations of Vizianagaram, Eluru, Machilipatnam, Guntur, Ongole, Tirupati, Chittoor, Kadapa, Kurnool and Ananthapur; Notification No.579/SEC-F1/2021-1 for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and Notification No.580/SEC-F1/2021-1 for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, with programme of election similar to election programme of Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats, as extracted supra.

45. Challenging the aforesaid Notifications dated 15.02.2021, W.P.Nos.4200 of 2021, 4292 of 2021, 4343 of 2021 and 4496 of 2021 were filed along with interlocutory applications, numbered as I.A.No.1 of 2021 in each of the writ petitions, seeking suspension of the Notification(s) challenged in the respective writ petitions. The learned single Judge, by a common order dated 26.02.2021, had declined to pass an interim order and had resultantly dismissed the said I.As. Challenging the said common order dated 26.02.2021, Writ Appeal Nos.117 of 2021, 118 of 2021 and 120 of 2021 were preferred by the respective writ petitioners.

46. By a common judgment dated 02.03.2021, a Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the aforesaid writ appeals. While negating the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that commencement of

election programme from the date of withdrawal of candidature instead of from the date of filing of nominations is arbitrary and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not considered the question relating to resumption of election process, at paragraph 20 of the judgment, it was held as follows:

"20) We are of the considered opinion that the Notification, dated 15.03.2020, having been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the Notification, dated 15.03.2020, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants is without any merit. It cannot be countenanced that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had adverted only to the postponement of the election and not the subsequent part, where the Election Commissioner indicated that the election process in respect of MPTCs/ZPTCs and Urban Local Bodies would be continued from the stage where it is stopped."

47. After dismissal of the aforesaid writ appeals, the poll process relating to Urban Local Bodies, such as, Municipalities/Municipal Corporations/Nagar Panchayats, were completed and after declaration of results, the first meeting of the Urban Local Bodies was convened on 18.03.2021 and thereafter, elected bodies had started functioning.

48. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to extract hereinbelow the election schedule of Rural and Urban Local Bodies, which was enclosed to the Notification dated 68/SEC-B1/2020 dated 07.03.2020, which is available at page 144 of the writ appeal papers.

"ELECTION SCHEDULE OF RURAL AND URBAN LOCAL BODIES – 2020

SL.	Activity	MPTC/ZPTC	MUNICIPAL	GRAM PANCHAYATS
No.		(One Phase)	BODIES		[Two Phases)
			(One Phase)	PHASE-I	PHASE-II
	1. Issue of Election	07.03.2020	09.03.2020	15.03.2020	17.03.2020
	Notification by the
	State Election
	Commission
	2. Election Notice by the<br>Returning Officer/<br>Election Officer	09.03.2020	11.03.2020	17.03.2020	19.03.2020
	3. Receipt of Nominations	09.03.2020	11.03.2020	17.03.2020	19.03.2020
		TO	TO	TO	TO
		11.03.2020	13.03.2020	19.03.2020	21.03.2020
	4. Scrutiny of<br>Nominations	12.03.2020	14.03.2020	20.03.2020	22.03.2020
	5. Appeal against	13.03.2020	--	21.03.2020	23.03.2020
	rejection of
	Nomination before the
	Revenue Divisional
	Officer/ District
	Collector
	6. Disposal of Appeals	14.03.2020	--	22.03.2020	24.03.2020
		(Before 1 PM)		(Before 1 PM)	(Before 1 PM)
	7. Last date for	14.03.2020	16.03.2020	22.03.2020	24.03.2020
	Withdrawal of<br>Candidatures	(Before 3 PM)	(Before 3 PM)	(Before 3 PM)	(Before 3 PM)
	8. Publication of Final List	14.03.2020	16.03.2020	22.03.2020	24.03.2020
	of Contesting<br>Candidates	(After 3 PM)	(After 3 PM)	(After 3 PM)	(After 3 PM)
	9. Conduct of Poll,	21.03.2020	23.03.2020	27.03.2020	29.03.2020
	wherever necessary	(7 AM to 5 PM)	(7 AM to 5 PM)	(7 AM to 1PM)	(7 AM to 1 PM)
	10. Counting of Votes and	24.03.2020	27.03.2020	27.03.2020	29.03.2020
	Declaration of Results	(From 8 AM)	(From 8 AM)	(After 2 PM)	(After 2 PM)

INDIRECT ELECTIONS

• 1. Indirect elections to Members (Co-opted), Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Zilla Praja Parishads and Member (Coopted), President and Vice-President of Mandal Praja Parishads will be held on 30.03.2020. The term of elected bodies will also commence from 30.03.2020.
• 2. Indirect elections to Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Municipal Corporations and Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats will be held on 31.03.2020. The term of elected bodies will also commence from 31.03.2020."

49. A perusal of the above election schedule goes to show that whole election process for MPTCs, ZPTCS, Municipal Bodies and Gram Panchayats was conceived in a composite manner in the sense that before completion of MPTCs/ZPTCs elections, election process for Municipal Bodies and Gram Panchayats is also to commence. In the letter No.70/SEC-B1/2020 dated 07.03.2020 issued by the State Election Commissioner, it is stated that the Model Code of Conduct for Local Body elections has come into force with the issuance of Election Notification No.68/SEC-B1/2020 dated 07.03.2020 and it would remain in force till completion of election of all Rural and Urban Local Bodies in the State.

50. If the elections were held as originally scheduled, Model Code of Conduct would have been in place only for a period of 14 days for elections to MPTCs and ZPTCs, for a period of 16 days for Municipal Bodies and for a period of 22 days insofar as Gram Panchayats are concerned.

51. The SEC, in its Notification dated 15.03.2020, had clearly indicated that the election process would be continued from the stage where it was stopped in respect of MPTCs/ZPTCs and Urban Local Bodies and challenge made to the said Notification having been negated by the order dated 18.03.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020, necessarily election process will resume from the point where it was paused. This Court had also, vide judgment dated 02.03.2021 in W.A.Nos.117, 118 and 120 of 2021, had negatived contentions to the contrary.

52. However, when the election process was resumed, it was not resumed with the elections of MPTCs and ZPTCs, which were the first elections to be held as per the original election schedule of Rural and

Urban Local Bodies in terms of Notification dated 07.03.2020, but the election process was re-started with the elections of Gram Panchayats, which were to be Stage-III election according to the earlier election schedule extracted supra and consequently, elections to the Gram Panchayats were notified by Notification dated 08.01.2021, fixing the first polling date for phase-I election on 05.02.2021, which, later on, as noted earlier, got shifted to 21.02.2021, as the last phase of the IV-Phase election schedule.

53. Though the Notification dated 08.01.2021 was challenged, no challenge was mounted questioning the decision of the SEC to hold the elections to Gram Panchayats ahead of elections to MPTCs/ZPTCs and Urban Local Bodies, on the ground that elections are to be held as per the original schedule announced by the SEC with appropriate change of dates, starting with elections to MPTCs and ZPTCs at the first instance and not the elections to the Gram Panchayats, that too, in isolation. No challenge was also mounted on the ground that Model Code of Conduct was not imposed for a period of four weeks from the date of notification to the date of poll, i.e., till 05.02.2021. It is to be noted that the intervening period from the date of Notification dated 08.01.2021 to the date of poll, i.e., 05.02.2021, is 28 days.

54. Clause 2 of the Model Code of Conduct for Local Body Elections, 2019, reads as follows:

"This Code shall come into force from the time elections are announced by the State Election Commission and shall remain in force till the completion of the election process."

55. Thus, when the resumed elections were announced by the SEC on 08.01.2021, in terms of Clause 2 of the Model Code of Conduct, the Model

Code of Conduct had come into force and viewed from that angle, four weeks' Model Code of Conduct was maintained prior to the date of poll as originally notified on 05.02.2021. However, there is a statement in the affidavit of the SEC that Model Code of Conduct was imposed in the rural areas with effect from 09.01.2021, in which event, the Model Code of Conduct was for 27 days. This aspect was not brought into focus in the earlier litigations. However, with the change of date of poll from 05.02.2021 to 21.02.2021 and the first poll having been conducted on 09.02.2021, the Model Code of Conduct eventually was in force for more than four weeks before the poll in the Phase-I of Gram Panchayat elections was conducted and thus, to that extent, there was compliance of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for imposition of Model Code of Conduct prior to four weeks from the date of poll.

56. During the ongoing election process of Panchayat elections, as noticed earlier, a Notification was issued on 15.02.2021 for the Urban Local Bodies and the Model Code of Conduct was brought into force from the date of notification of elections till the polling date, i.e., till 10.03.2021, which is for a period of 23 days. Even though the Notification dated 15.02.2021 came to be challenged in W.P(PIL).No.51 of 2021, the same was not challenged on the ground that the Model Code of Conduct is not imposed for a period of four weeks in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.03.2020 passed in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020.

57. By the time the Notification dated 15.03.2020 was issued, publication of final list of contesting candidates in respect of MPTCs/ZPTCs elections was already made on 14.03.2020 and only conduct of poll, counting of votes and declaration of results were left to be completed.

The Model Code of Conduct from publication of final list on 14.03.2020 to conduct of poll as fixed on 21.03.2020 is for a period of seven days and while issuing Notification dated 01.04.2021, the Model Code of Conduct as originally contemplated was maintained.

58. It is to be remembered that though Notification dated 15.03.2020 was issued staying the election process of MPTCs/ZPTCs and other Urban Local Bodies due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the Model Code of Conduct was not lifted by the SEC and it is in that context, submission was advanced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that continued imposition of Model Code of Conduct despite elections being postponed would not be justified as developmental works of the State remain suspended while Model Code of Conduct is in force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found substance in the aforesaid argument and it is in that context, it was observed that the SEC would impose Model Code of Conduct of four weeks before the notified date of polling. We find substance in the argument of Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy that such a direction was issued as the election was paused by the SEC because of Covid-19 and the election was to resume later on and that it is not the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for each and every election, Model Code of Conduct has to be imposed for a period of four weeks from the date of Notification till the polling date, contrary to the Model Code of Conduct for Local Body Elections in force and that is how the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was understood by all the stakeholders including the petitioner in W.P.No.7778 of 2021, whose petition was dismissed, inasmuch as when, ex facie, Model Code of Conduct was imposed for a period of 23 days in terms of Model Code of Conduct in force in respect of elections to Municipalities/Municipal Corporations, he did not raise any objection on

that count. It is another matter that only at the time of last of the elections to be held, he had raised the plea while filing W.P.No.7778 of 2021.

59. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021 did not even plead that there was violation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to imposition of Model Code of Conduct and yet the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021 pleaded and proved that the right of contesting candidates of the petitioner is infringed as the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.03.2020 in W.P.(C).No.437 of 2020 was disregarded. Though the learned single Judge observed that the main grievance of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021 was that on account of issuance of the Notification dated 01.04.2021, the contesting candidates of the writ petitioner are denied fair opportunity to make preparation for campaigning in the elections and were disabled to participate in the election process due to scuttling of level playing field, it will be appropriate to note that no such pleas were raised in the writ petition. It is also not understood how the Notification dated 01.04.2021 had scuttled the level playing field or denied fair opportunity to the candidates of the writ petitioner for campaigning when the said Notification dated 01.04.2021 applied to all contesting candidates across the board. The contention raised by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021 that the election process has to be started by issuing a fresh Notification starting from fixing date for filing of nominations and not from the stage where it was stopped was negated by the learned single Judge and therefore, on the basis of the case as projected by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7847 of 2021, the aforesaid writ petition would have merited dismissal. Assuming that pleadings in W.P.No.7778 of 2021 regarding

non-imposition of Model Code of Conduct for a period of four weeks in respect of elections to MPTCs/ZPTCs could be considered while considering W.P.No.7847 of 2021, we are unable to agree with the conclusions drawn by the learned single Judge that the Notification dated 01.04.2021 was issued in deliberate and intentional violation of the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C). No.437 of 2020 by over-reaching the said order. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions above, we are of the opinion that direction for imposition of Model Code of Conduct four weeks before the date of polling after resumption of election process stood satisfied with the holding of election of Gram Panchayats with Model Code of Conduct in force for four weeks before the date of poll.

60. The learned single Judge found fault with the Election Commissioner in not only issuing the Notification dated 01.04.2021 but also in immediately approaching the Division Bench by way of an appeal (W.A.No.224 of 2021) against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition. Approaching the appellate Court to seek redressal cannot be criticized unless such an appeal is vexatious or frivolous on the face of it and is an abuse of process of law. It bears repetition to state that the Division Bench had interfered with the order of the learned single Judge dated 06.04.2021, by which poll was stayed two days before the date of poll, and while providing that the poll can be conducted on 08.04.2021, had directed that counting of votes shall not take place and consequently, result of elections shall also not be declared till disposal of the writ petition.

61. In view of the discussions above, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the common judgment and order dated 21.05.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.7847 and 7778 of 2021 is set aside insofar as it relates to W.P.No.7847 of 2021.

62. Before parting with the records of the case, it will be appropriate to deal with the submission of Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy in respect of certain adverse remarks made by the learned single Judge against the State Election Commissioner. The adverse comments are extracted hereinbelow:

….."On reading the said order, even a common man who can read, write and understand the English language can easily find out the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the order. But, here the State Election Commissioner, who worked as Chief Secretary to the State being a senior most retired IAS Officer, could not understand the simple direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in right perspective, which creates doubt as to her suitability and fitness to the post of Election Commissioner."

xxx xxx xxx

..…"Normally, the IAS officers, who are working and achieved excellence in the career with their brilliance, were posted in the rank of Principal Secretary and above to look after the entire administration in the State and expected to act fairly and freely without any fear or favour; though worked in particular Government, they are being appointed in key posts such as State Election Commissioner since they possessed knowledge vested with power. Based on such brilliance and knowledge, the State Election Commissioner could not understand the purport of the order passed by the Full Bench

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, obviously for the reasons best known to the State Election Commissioner. The present situation is fine example of democratic backsliding. The understanding of the order of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by respondent No.1 or by Secretary to respondent No.1 is not based on any reasoning, except non application of mind by the concerned authority. The State Election Commissioner did not care even the direction issued by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by overreaching the order, made the direction lifeless and the direction became redundant."

63. We are of the considered opinion that such strong words and observations were not really called for. In the context of the case, when the order of the learned single Judge is set aside, in any view of the matter, such observations will have no relevance.

64. The writ appeals are, accordingly, allowed. Interim order passed earlier shall stand vacated. Steps may now be taken for counting of votes by strictly and scrupulously observing and following all guidelines issued and protocols formulated by the competent authorities in connection with Covid-19 pandemic.

65. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ J. UMA DEVI, J

IBL