* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

+ WRIT PETITION No.3332 & 6800 of 2024

% 16.04.2024

W.P. No.3332 of 2024:-

Between:

# Rastriya Praja Congress (Secular),

Central Office, at D.No. 12-11-113,

Aryapuram, RPC Street, (RPC Bhavan).

Rajahmundry-4, Rep. by its Founder

President, Srinivas Meda, S/o. Meda

Surya Narayana, Aged about 54 years.

…. Petitioner

Versus

$ The Election Commission of India,

Rep. by its Secretary, Nirvachan

Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi -110

001 and 3 others.

….Respondents

W.P. No.6800 of 2024:-

Between:

# Rastriya Praja Congress (Secular),

Central Office, at D.No. 12-11-113,

Aryapuram, RPC Street, (RPC Bhavan).

Rajahmundry-4, Rep. by its Founder

President, Srinivas Meda, S/o. Meda

Surya Narayana, Aged about 54 years.

…. Petitioner

Versus

$ The Election Commission of India,

Rep. by its Secretary, Nirvachan

Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110

001 and 2 others.

….Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioner : M/s. Corpus Juris Law Panel

Sri. M.V.Raja Ram.

^ Counsel for the respondents: The learned Standing Counsel

for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Sri. E. Sambasiva Pratap and

Sri. V. Venkata Subbaiah

for the respondent No. 4.

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

W.P.No.6995 of 2024

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

+ WRIT PETITION No.3332 & 6800 of 2024

W.P. No.3332 of 2024:-

Between:

# Rastriya Praja Congress (Secular),

Central Office, at D.No. 12-11-113,

Aryapuram, RPC Street, (RPC Bhavan).

Rajahmundry-4, Rep. by its Founder

President, Srinivas Meda, S/o. Meda

Surya Narayana, Aged about 54 years.

…. Petitioner

Versus

$ The Election Commission of India,

Rep. by its Secretary, Nirvachan

Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110

001 and 3 others.

….Respondents

W.P. No.6800 of 2024:-

Between:

# Rastriya Praja Congress (Secular),

Central Office, at D.No. 12-11-113,

Aryapuram, RPC Street, (RPC Bhavan).

Rajahmundry-4, Rep. by its Founder

President, Srinivas Meda, S/o. Meda

Surya Narayana, Aged about 54 years.

…. Petitioner

Versus

$ The Election Commission of India,

Rep. by its Secretary, Nirvachan

Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi -110

001 and 2 others.

….Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PR ONOUNCED 16.04.2024.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may

be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of order may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair

Copy of the Order? Yes/No

_______________________________

JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

WRIT PETITION Nos. 3332 and 6800 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Standing counsel for the 1

st respondent and the

learned Senior Counsel for the 4

th respondent in the 1

st case.

2. The W.P.No. 3332 of 2024 is filed questioning the letter

of the 1

st respondent dated 18.08.2023 and the letter of the

1

st respondent dated 24.01.2024.

3. The W.P.No. 6800 of 2024 is filed questioning the

action of the 1

st respondent in issuing the letter dated

06.02.2024 addressed to the petitioner by not considering the

application of the petitioner dated 16.10.2023 and

20.12.2023 under 10-B of the Election Symbols (Reservation

and Allotment) Order, 1968.

4. Under the impugned letter dated 18.08.2023 of the 1

st

respondent addressed to the petitioner, it was informed that

the application of the petitioner dated 13.05.2023 was

received on 17.05.2023 requesting for allotment of common

symbol to the candidates of the petitioner -party in the

upcoming General Elections in the States of Andhra Pradesh

and Telangana, found to be premature as it was made prior

to the prescribed time period as per para 10-B of the Election

Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and as the

said application was submitted in an incomplete proforma, it

has not been considered.

5. Under the impugned letter of the 1

st respondent dated

24.01.2024, the 4

th respondent along with the other parties

were given concessions as sought under para 10 -B of the

Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 for

the forthcoming General Elections to the Legislative Assembly

of Andhra Pradesh and Sikkim, 2024. In which the 4

th

respondent is allotted “Glass Tumbler” as common symbol to

contest in all the 175 Assembly Constituencies in the State of

Andhra Pradesh. The application of the 4

th respondent is

dated 12.12.2023 in proforma for allotment of common

symbol under para 10-B of the Election Symbols (Reservation

& Allotment) Order, 1968, which was submitted by hand on

the same day. As per para 10 -B (A) (ii) of the Election

Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968, the

application can be made by any party to the 1

st respondent

commission at any time during the period commencing from

six (6) months prior to the date of expiry of the term of the

Assembly and latest by five (5) clear days before the date of

which the notification (or the 1

st phase of the notifications in

the case of phased Elections) of the Election is scheduled to

be issued. As per the para 10-B (A) (iv) of the said order 1968,

the party shall give the names of the 10 symbols in order of

preference from out of list of free symbols notified by the

Commission under paragraph 17 of that ord er. It is the

contention of the petitioner that the application of the 4

th

respondent is not in order and Annexure-I was not given by

the 4

th respondent. Whereas the petitioner made another

application in proforma dated 20.12.2023, which was

received by the 1

st respondent on 26.12.2023. The window of

the 1

st respondent was open on 12.12.2023 in terms of para

10-B (A) (ii) as stated above.

6. The learned Standing counsel for the 1

st respondent

submits that any application received on or after 12.12.2023

would be considered by the 1

st respondent commission on

first come, first served basis as per para 10-B explanation (iv)

of the above said Order, 1968. In this case, the petitioner’s

application is dated 20.12.2023 and the 4

th respondent’s

application is dated 12.12.2023 as already stated above in

detail.

7. The learned Standing counsel for the 1

st respondent

produces the relevant extract of the Inward Register of the 1

st

respondent commission with respect to the application of the

4

th respondent, which shows that the application of the 4

th

respondent dated 12.12.2023 was received by one Mr. Kamal

Sharma, R&I, Employee of the 1

st respondent on 12.12.2023

at 10.29 a.m and the same was forwarded immediately to one

Ms. Jaydeb Lahiri, Secretary, PPS-II of the 1

st respondent.

Ultimately, the result was communicated to the 4

th

respondent on 20.02.2024 at 02.36 p.m. He further submits

that only when the application is made in proforma by the

party/applicant enclosing all the necessary documents and

the information furnished as required at the time of

submission of the application itself, the Commission would

consider finally for concession sought as per the above said

Order, 1968 by allotting a common symbol to that

party/applicant to contest the forthcoming Elections. Since,

the application of the 4

th respondent dated 12.12.2023 was

completely in order at the time of submission itself, the same

has been considered by the 1

st respondent favourably under

the impugned letter of the 1

st respondent dated 24.01.2024

along with the other eligible parties. Since the petitioner’s

application was made prematurely contrary to the above said

Order, 1968, the same was not considered under the

impugned letter of the 1

st respondent dated 18.08.2023 and

as the documents furnished alo ng with the letter of the

petitioner dated 10.08.2020 were incomplete under section

29(A) (9) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, the

same was rejected vide the impugned letter of the 1

st

respondent dated 06.02.2024 which is assailed in the 2

nd writ

petition (W.P.No. 6800 of 2024).

8. Even after sending some more information and the

documents additionally by any of the parties/applicants in

continuation of their earlier/original applications submitted,

they would not cure the defects and as such th ey are not

entitled to be given any benefit under the above said Order,

1968. Unless the applications submitted in proforma are fully

loaded with all the necessary documents and information

required to be furnished strictly in terms of law, they are not

entitled to be considered favourably as per the above said

Order, 1968. Since the petitioner made another application

earlier dated 16.10.2023, the same was also rejected as it

was made prematurely contrary to the above said Order,

1968. Be that as it may, the another application of the

petitioner dated 20.12.2023 was received by the 1

st

respondent on 26.12.2023 and it was also not considered for

allotment of common symbol to the candidates of the

petitioner-party for the upcoming General Elections under

para 10-B of the Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment)

Order, 1968 on the ground that on the date of application,

there are no authorized office bearers as per the records of

the Commission and the same was communicated by the 1

st

respondent vide letter dated 06.03.2024 which is not under

challenge in these writ petitions.

9. The learned Standing counsel for the 1

st respondent

also relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of the

Telangana High Court in W.P.No. 6995 of 2024 dated

01.04.2024 which held at para Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the

said order as under:

“11. Thus, from perusal of the relevant extract of the

Symbols Order, 1968, the guidelines dated 29.08.2014 and the

order passed by Election Commission of India dated

25.05.2022, it is evident that a political party is required to

furnish the annual audited accounts of the financial years

concerned as well as the expenditure statement and the

contributions received by it. The application submitted by a

registered political party for allotment of common symbol has to

be dealt with on first-come-first-served basis.

12. In the instant case, the application for allotment of

common symbol for contesting the ensuing Parliamentary

Elections was filed by the petitioner on 22.12.2023. However,

admittedly, along with the aforesaid application, the petitioner

neither filed Contribution Reports nor filed the list of Office

Bearers. The petitioner subsequent to submission of the

application on 22.12.2023 had submitted a Contribution

Report in Form 24A on 05.02.2024 and thereafter, submitted

the list of Office Bearers in the elections, which were held

subsequent to the filing of the application on 20.01.2024, on

20.02.2024 before Election Commission of India. Thus, the

application submitted by the petitioner on 22.12.2023 was

incomplete. The application submitted by a political party for

allotment of common symbol has to be complete in all respects

on the day of submission of application as the application has

to be considered on first -come-first-served basis. The

application dated 22.12.2023 submitted by the petitioner was

incomplete and therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by

Election Commission of India.

13. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

infirmity in the order passed by Election Commission of India.

14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.”

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4

th

respondent in the 1

st case (W.P.No. 3332 of 2024) adopts the

contentions of the 1

st respondent counsel and further

submits that the 4

th respondent contested in the previous

Elections also and secured minimum percentage of votes and

as such it made an application as stated above on

12.12.2023 in proforma enclosing all the necessary

documents and information as required under par a 10-B of

the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order,

1968. The petitioner cannot challenge the symbol allotted to

the 4

th respondent as its application in proforma satisfied all

the requirements under law.

11. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner in both

the cases submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s

application dated 13.05.2023 and allotment of symbol for the

4

th respondent are illegal and arbitrary. He further submits

that the petitioner submitted documents subsequentl y but

the same were not considered by the 1

st respondent

Commission to consider the application submitted earlier.

12. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, rival

submissions made and para 10 -B of the Election Symbols

(Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, it is to be seen that

the petitioner’s earlier applications dated 13.05.2023 and

16.10.2023 were found to be made prematurely contrary to

the para 10-B (A) (ii) of the Election Symbols (Reservation &

Allotment) Order, 1968 and as such the impugned letters of

the 1

st respondent dated 18.08.2023 and 06.02.2024 cannot

be found fault with as they are just and proper in tune with

the above said Order, 1968. The prayer in the 1

st writ petition

clubbing two different issues which are not having bearing on

each other is misconceived, since the 1

st limb of the prayer is

about questioning of non consideration of the petitioner’s

application dated 13.05.2023 under the impugned letter of

the 1

st respondent dated 18.08.2023 and the 2

nd limb of the

prayer is with respect to the allotment of common symbol to

the 4

th respondent under the impugned letter of the 1

st

respondent dated 24.01.2024. In these cases, as seen above,

the petitioner’s applications are dated 13.05.2023,

16.10.2023 and 20.12.2023. Whereas the 4

th respondent’s

unique application is dated 12.12.2023. The only difference

between the petitioner and the 4

th respondent is that the

applications of the petitioner are incomplete and the

application of the 4

th respondent is complete as contended by

the learned Standing Counsel of the respondent No.1. The

petitioner miserably failed to demonstrate, how the 4

th

respondent is not entitled to be allotted a common symbol

under the impugned proceedings of the 1

st respondent dated

24.01.2024 and as such it is not liable to be interfered with.

The applications of the petitioner as discussed above are

failed due to lack of submission of those applications in

proforma and in order by enclosing all the necessary

documents and the information required to be furnished at

the time of submission of those applications only as required

and mandated under para 10 -B of the Election Symbols

(Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 for the purpose of

scrutiny and consideration of the

1

st respondent Commission. Unless the

petitioner/party/applicant submits any application in

proforma and in order under the above said Order, 1968 in

all aspects as required and reiterated by the 1

st respondent

commission time and again, such application will not get any

eligibility to be considered favourably to grant concession in

the matter of allotment of common symbol at the time of

scrutiny and consideration. That apart, admittedly, the

petitioner has not challenged the letter of the 1

st respondent

dated 06.03.2024 wherein the application of the petitioner

dated 20.12.2023 was rejected for the reasons mentioned

therein and as such no indulgence can be shown in these

writ petitions.

13. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.

No costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_______________________________

JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

16.04.2024

L.R. copy to be marked

B/o. UPS