IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) I TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY lO TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE yi\ u». o PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4182 OF 2025 Between: Kondapalli Srinivasu, S/o Dharmayya, Aged 40 years, R/at D.No. 4-78, Venkatapuram Village, Tirumaladevipeta Post, T. Narasapuram Mandal, Eluru District-534467, Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner AND 1. The Election Commission of India, Rep by its Chief Election Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashok Road, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission, Rep by its Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner, 1st Floor, New Hods Building, M.G. Road, Vijawada-10, Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh-520010. 3. The Chief Electoral Officer, Room No. 192, Ground floor Building No.5, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh-522238. 4. The Returning Officer, East-West Godavari Graduates Constituency and District Collector Eluru, Andhra Pradesh-534001. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to allow this writ petition and declare the action of the 4th Respondent rejected my nomination Application for Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council from East-West Godavari Graduates Constituency in scrutiny on 11-02-2025 after conducting oath and receiving for Security deposit and also issued proper Check List without raising objections of Documents in Connection with filing of Nomination is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principle of Natural Justice and violation of People Representation Act and also against the Article 324 constitution of India, and also will get deprived of his legal right. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 on Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to considered the petitioner’s nomination application for Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council from Godavari Graduates Constituency Elections 2025 and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner’s candidature for contesting for Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council from Graduates Constituency Elections 2025 pending disposal petition. East-West consequently East-West Godavari of the writ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI D S SIVA DARSHAN APSEC SC FOR The Court made the following order: 3 APHC010078702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0:*0 [3329] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4182/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Kondapalli Srinivasu AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Election Commission Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S1MHACHALAM KARUKOLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 r THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4182/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus to allow this writ petition and declare the action of the 4^^ Respondent rejected petitioner’s nomination Application for Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council from East-West Godavari Graduates’ Constituency in scrutiny on 11.02.2025 after conducting oath and receiving for Security deposit and also issued proper Check List without raising on objections of Documents in Connection with filing of Nomination is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principle of Natural Justice and violation of People Representation Act and also against the Article 324 Constitution of India and also will get deprived of his legal right and pass such other order. ” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.S.Siva Darshan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents assisted by Ms.K.Tanusha, learned counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted his nomination pursuant to the notification for conducting election to the Member of A.P. Legislative Council from the East-West Godavari Graduates’ Constituency. The petitioner submitted his nomination on 10.02.2025 at 2.48 P.M. i.e., at the last hour of 3 PM. After receipt of the said nomination of the petitioner the 4*'' respondent issued check list with immediate effect acknowledging list of documents attached along with the nomination. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even though the check list issued by the 4"^ respondent endorsing that all the i documents were duly submitted by the petitioner, but the nomination of the petitioner was rejected erroneously on the ground that a notarized affidavit was not duly signed by the petitioner. If it is a rectifiable mistake on the part of the petitioner, the 4“^ respondent should have been allowed for rectification of the said mistake or to permit to submit a fresh affidavit. But contrary to the mandatory procedure, the 4*^ respondent not allowed the petitioner for such rectification or for submission of the new affidavit replacing the old affidavit, even though it is a rectifiable mistake, but rejecting the nomination of the petitioner is nothing but impugning/ infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India apart from conducting elections free and fair manner as envisaged under the Constitution of India as well as per the provision Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and also the preposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly the petitioner had submitted his nomination at the last hour i.e., at 2.48 PM on 10.02.2025 just before 12 minutes before the dead line/ time stipulated. Therefore, the application itself is inbuilt and petitioner was duly provided an opportunity for rectification of the mistakes he committed, even after 4 availing the same, the petitioner is not in a position to rectify the same within the time specified as per the election schedule, but he came with a fresh affidavit after completion of the time permitted to him. Therefore, the petitioner cannot canvas or make any allegations against the 4^^^ respondent stating that the 4**^ respondent erroneously rejected the nomination of the petitioner. He further submits that in view of the settled preposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.P.Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others^ any dispute after issuance of election schedule is liable to be resolved by way of Election Petition only. He further submits that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked even for an admitted mistakes or any fault in procedure or any fault found with the election officers, except by way of Election Petition. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view it is a settled law that the extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked in respect of election disputes, once the election schedule is issued, further conducting of election cannot be interdicted by any Court more particularly by constitutional Courts vide extraordinary jurisdiction ^ (1952) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94 5 \ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On perusal of para 35 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra, it is clear and categorical that this Court cannot interfere or interdict the election process which was set in motion, in view of the election notification. Moreover, the petitioner is available with the alternative remedy by way of Election Petition and he may raise all the disputes which are canvassed here and other disputes may found during course of election, before the election tribunal for redressal of his claim. 6. In view of devoid of merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD, RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SE' To. 1. One CC to Sri. Simhachalam Karukola Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. D S Siva Darshan SC for APSEC Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4182 of 2025 I 1 3 MAR 2025 ^ . Current aeciion «o, DISMISSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS