APHC010685962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 42 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-6 [3446] Reforms Party of India ...Appellant Vs. Election Commission of India and another ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellant : Party in person Advocate for respondents : Sri K. Tanusha representing Sri D. S. Sivadarshan CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 22nd January 2026 P C : The present Writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.21622 of 2025. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition had sought a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not responding to the grievances of small political parties and further that their action in not inviting small parties to the meetings of the Election Commission of India or the Chief Electoral Officer along with recognized political parties was unjust and unfair. 3. From the record, we can see that the learned single Judge dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner had not made out a case of personal 2 grievance or sufferance and that the issues raised were general in nature. It was also held that no reference was made to any provision of any statute under which a statutory right was seemed to have been violated. 4. From the record, we can see that the representation of the petitioner had been answered by communication dated 04.06.2025 and in particular, paragraph No.9 thereof, wherein the petitioner was informed that the candidates set up by recognized political parties constituted a separate class and in this regard, reference was made to Rama Kant Pandey vs. Union of India & Others [AIR 1993 SC 1766]. 5. The aforementioned communication dated 04.06.2025 was not challenged before the learned single Judge although learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Apex Court judgment referred to in the communication dated 04.06.2025 had no relevance to the issues which had been highlighted and raised by the appellant before the learned single Judge. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one which was taken by the learned single Judge. 7. The Writ Appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 3 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J AMD 4 158 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 42 of 2026 Dt : 22.01.2026 AMD