1

APHC010570552026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3458]

TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 31179/2026

Between:

1. SMT. NADIGEDDA RESHMA,, D/O NADIGEDDA EMAMULU, AGED

ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION. SELF EMPLOYEE, RIO. D.NO.6/77 -

D, SARASWATHIPURAM, RAJAMPETA, Y.S.R. KADAPA

DISTRICT.516115

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,

SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT. 522238

2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, , VIJAYAWADA, NTR

DISTRICT., REP BY ITS STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER., NEW

HOD'S BUILDING, OPP. INDIRA GANDH I MUNICIPAL STADIUM, M.G

ROAD, VIJAYAWADA520010

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMELECTION OFFICER, KADAPA, Y.S.R

DISTRICT.516001

4. THE RETURNING OFFICER, RAJAMPETA MUNICIPALITY, Y.S.R.

KADAPA DISTRICT. 516115

2

5. DONTHAM GAYATRI, D/O. DONTHAM SIVA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT

24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. DOOR NO.6/944, NOONEVARI

PAILI, RAJAMPETA, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT.516115

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one

the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in

issuing From-II Declaration, dated 25.10.2026 straight away, declaring that the

respondent No.5 is elected as Chairperson of Rajampeta Municipality, without

publishing the final list of contesting candidates, that too, without disclosing the

status of the nomination submitted by me or communicating any decision

thereon, as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the

instructions issued by the respondent No.2 and also well established legal

principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me

under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside

From-II Declaration, dated 25.10.2026 issued by the respondent No.4

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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

grant stay of all further proceedings inpursuance of From-II Declaration, dated

25.10.2026 issued by the respondent No.4, pending disposal of the above Writ

Petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. V R REDDY KOVVURI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

3

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 31179/2026

ORDER:-

Head Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Ashwini Kumar, leaned Standing Counsel for SEC appearing for respondent

No.2, learned Government pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban

Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 4 and learned Assistant

Government pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.3.

2. Instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents

in issuing the Form-II declaration dated 25.10.2026, declaring that respondent

No. 5 is elected as Chairperson of Rajampeta Municipality, without publishing the

final list of contesting candidates and without disclosing the status of the

nomination submitted by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary; consequently, it

seeks to set aside the Form-II declaration dated 25.10.2026 issued by

respondent No.4.

3. It is contended that pursuant to the notification issued by the State

Election Commission on 14.10.2026, the petitioner had submitted his nomination

papers for election to the Office of Municipal Chairperson, Rajampeta

Municipality. The said applications were scrutinized on 19.10.2026. In such

4

scrutiny, the petitioner's authorized representative was informed that the

nomination had been allegedly rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not

furnish a ‘No Due Certificate’ and a certificate of Police Clearance. However, the

petitioner was not informed of the reasons for rejection. The only information the

petitioner received was a telephonic conversation, without any copy of the

rejection order. On the date scheduled for publication of the contesting

candidates, the petitioner came to understand that the 5

th

respondent was

elected as Chairperson of Rajampeta Municipality.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he had made a

representation to the State Election Commissioner. As the Commissioner did not

respond, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.Sr.No.45237 of 2026, which

was listed on 24.10.2026 as a House motion. At the respondent's request, the

matter was adjourned to 25.10.2026 to ascertain the status of the petitioner's

nomination. On 25.10.2026, the learned Standing Counsel could not place any

material on the status of the petitioner's nomination papers. However, the Form-II

declaration was issued. Challenging the same, the instant Writ Petition is filed.

It is further contended that the State Election Commission and its Officers have

failed to discharge their duties in terms of the Constitutional mandate.

5. It is further contended that on 21.10.2026, the 2

nd

respondent issued

a clarification to all Returning Officers that nomination papers shall not be

5

rejected on the ground of non-submission of a Police Clearance Certificate and a

No Objection Certificate. In light of the said Circular, the respondent had no

occasion to reject the nomination papers on the ground of non-submission of the

No Objection Certificate and the Police Clearance Certificate.

6. In light of the same, learned counsel Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, argues

that the petitioner was not informed of the rejection. His nomination papers are

deemed accepted. In such a situation, declaring the 5

th

respondent as the

elected candidate for the post of Municipal Chairperson is not sustainable, and

the same should not be given effect. It is further contended that in order to

ensure free and fair elections the judicial review of the proceedings of the

election authority is warranted.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of

India Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others

1

, contends that the relief sought in the Writ

Petition would not amount to interdicting the process of election. In fact it

sub serves the progress of the election and is in furtherance of completion of the

election. Thus constitutional bar would not apply to the instant case, in as much

as his grievance, is that the petitioner was not informed of the status of her

1

(2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 216

6

nomination papers in Form-II and without publishing the list of contesting

candidates, the declaration issued is unsustainable.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents,

Sri Ashwini Kumar, submits that once the election results are declared, the

remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the election tribunal. The

constitutional bar operates, and this Court cannot examine the correctness of the

election process involved in declaring the 5

th

respondent as the elected

candidate. In support of his contentions, he relies on the following judgments:-

I. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

N.P. Ponnuswamy Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal

Constituency and Others

2

;

II. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Meenakshi Natarajan Vs. Election Commission of

India and Another

3

;

III. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Sandeep Singh Bora Vs. Narendra Singh Deopa and

Others

4

,

2

(1952) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94

3

2026 SCC Online SC 1133

4

(2026) 5 Supreme Court Cases 747

7

IV. Full Bench judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in W.A.No.1221 of 2004 dated 26.10.2004.

V. The decision of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in

W.P.No.5113, 5139 and 5141 of 2021.

9. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the relief sought

in the Writ Petition is challenging the declaration. The prayer of the petitioner is

for a declaration that the respondent's action of declaring respondent No. 5 as

Chairperson of the Municipality is illegal. The said prayer itself is not

maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further contends

that the moment Form-II is issued, the election is concluded, the Returning

Officer has no locus in cases and he cannot gather information to furnish to the

petitioner. The alternative remedy is by way of election petition before election

Tribunal.

10. Considered the submissions.

11. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities and

Nagar Panchayats (Conduct of elections to the Office of Chair persons and Ward

Members in the Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats) Rules, 2026 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Rules’). Rule 11 of ‘the Rules’ provides that on the last date

fixed for receipt of nomination papers and immediately after the hour for their

receipt is past, the Election Officer or the authorized person shall publish in the

8

municipal office a list in Form-III of all nominations to the office of

chairperson/Ward Member informing that nomination papers would be taken up

by the election officer for scrutiny at the municipal office.

12. The scrutiny of nominations as provided under Rule 12 of ‘the Rules’

provides for a specific procedure such as on the day appointed for the scrutiny of

nominations, the candidates, the agents, and one proposer of each candidate,

and one other person, duly authorized in writing by each candidate, except for

assisting the Election Officer, may attend at such time and place as may be

specified under Rule 11, and the Election Officer shall give such persons all

reasonable facilities to examine the nomination papers of all candidates which

have been received within time. The Election Officer shall then examine the

nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made at the time

to any nomination and may either on such objection or on his own motion, after

such summary inquiry, reject, as he thinks necessary, any nomination on any of

the grounds provided under as Rule 12 of ‘the Rules’. After scrutiny, the

Commission shall publish a list of validly nominated candidates in Form-IV for the

elections to the office of Chairperson and Ward Member separately.

13. Rule 13 of ‘the Rules’ provides that any candidate for the election of

Chairperson or Ward member may withdraw his candidature by issuing notice in

writing in Form-V signed by him and delivered personally to the Election Officer

9

at any time. After presentation of nomination papers before 03:00 o'clock in the

afternoon, on the second day after the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations.

14. After the expiry of the time allowed for withdrawal of candidature

under Rule 13 of ‘the Rules’, the Election Officer shall prepare a list in Form-VIII

of persons whose nominations for election as Chairperson or Ward Member have

not been rejected and who have not withdrawn their candidature, and publish the

list of contesting candidates.

15. As noted from the procedure prescribed, the scrutiny of nominations,

the scheme of the Rules provides for a procedure, which is in the presence of the

candidates, and all persons concerned will be provided a reasonable opportunity

to examine the nomination papers of all the candidates which have been

received within time.

16. In light of the same, the contention of the petitioner that he was not

given an opportunity and was kept in the dark is not sustainable; further, in light

of the constitutional bar under Art 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India, the relief

sought by the petitioner is not maintainable.

17. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble

Apex Court and the Full Bench decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra

10

Pradesh, on which the reliance has been placed by the learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respondents Sri N. Ashwini Kumar.

I. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswamy Vs. Returning

Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others, has held that:

“20. It was argued that since the Representation of the People Act

was enacted subject to the provisions of the Constitution, it cannot bar

the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs under article 226 of the

Constitution. This argument however is completely shut out by reading

the Act along with Article 329(B). It will be noticed that the language

used in that article and in Section 80 of the Act is almost identical, with

this difference only that the article is preceded by the words

“notwithstanding anything in this Constitution." I think that those words

are quite apt to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with

any matter which may arise while the elections are in the progress.

* * *

25. The conclusions which I have arrived at may be summed up

briefly as follows :-

(1) Having regard to the important functions which

the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries,

it has always been recognized to be a matter of first

importance that elections should be concluded as early

as possible according to time schedule and all

controversial matters and all disputes arising out of

elections should be postponed till after the elections are

over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly

retarded or protracted.

(2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of

the election law in this country as well as in England is

11

that no significance should be attached to anything

which does not affect the "election": and if any

irregularities are committed while it is in progress and

they belong to the category or class which, under the

law by which elections are governed, would have the

effect of vitiating the "election" and enable the person

affected to call it in question, they should be brought up

before a Special Tribunal by means of an election

petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before

any court while the election is in progress.

* * *

29. The points which emerge from this decision may be stated as

follows :-

(1) The right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a civil

right but is a creature of statute or special law and must be subject to

the limitations imposed by it.

(2) Strictly speaking, it is the sole right of the Legislature to examine

and determine all matters relating to the election of its own members,

and if the legislature takes it out of its own hands and vests in a special

tribunal and entirely new and unknown jurisdiction, that special

jurisdiction should be exercised in accordance with the law which

creates it.”

II. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meenakshi Natarajan Vs. Election

Commission of India and Another; has held that:

“12. It is vehemently put forth by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi that in a

case of this nature where the illegality in rejection of nomination is glaring

and manifest, this Court must step in to curb the injustice, otherwise the

very sanctity of the election process would be affected. However, this

argument cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down in

12

Ponnuswami (supra). If this Court accepts such argument to find out

such glaring cases, which are required to be interfered with under

Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India and the other set of cases

in which the rejection is not so improper prima facie relegating them to

avail the remedy of filing election petition, this Court would be reading

some principle which is not provided for under Article 329 of the

Constitution of India. We are afraid, any such interpretation, that in some

cases this Court can entertain a petition wherein a candidate’s

nomination paper has been improperly rejected, while leaving some

others to avail the remedy of filing an election petition before the election

tribunal, should not be encouraged, being in direct conflict with the law

laid down in Ponnuswami (supra).”

III. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Singh Bora Vs. Narendra

Singh Deopa and Others, has held that:

“28.1. By virtue of the express constitutional embargo contained in

Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, the High Court is precluded

from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where

a law enacted by the State Legislature provides for the remedy of an

election petition to redress grievances arising during the course of an

election.

* * *

28.3. In respect of individual grievances, the ultimate and exclusive

remedy lies by way of an election petition. Given the non-obstante

nature of Article 243-O of the Constitution, its mandate is required to

be adhered to in both letter and spirit. Where the statute provides a

complete and efficacious mechanism for redressal, the extraordinary

exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would

13

defeat the very object for which Article 243-O was enacted as a non-

obstante provision.”

IV. Full Bench judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

W.A.No.1221 of 2004 dated 26.10.2004, wherein it is observed as under:

“24. We are, therefore of the considered view that the Supreme

Court right from Ponnuswami's case (supra) has consistently laid

down the law that election covers the entire process i.e from the

issue of the notification under the relevant legislation to the

declaration of the result. Having regard to the important functions

which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it

had always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that

elections should be concluded as early as possible according to

the time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes

arising out of elections should be postponed till the elections are

over. The person interested in questioning the elections has to wait

till the election is over and institute a petition in accordance with

the law calling in question the election of the successful candidate.

Any matter, which has the effect of vitiating an election, should be

brought up only at appropriate stage in an appropriate manner

before a Special Tribunal constituted for the purpose and should

not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. In

other words, in election matters, only one remedy is available, that

remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the

election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any

intermediate stage. High Court should not exercise its

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution to

entertain petitions regarding Improper rejection of nomination

papers.”

14

18. In the light of the foregoing, the Writ Petition is not maintainable, in

light of the constitutional bar under Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India,

and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra.

19. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Vs. U.T. Chandigarh

and Others in Civil Appeal No.2874 of 2024 arises out of the proceedings in

connection with the misconduct of the Presiding Officer putting his own mark on

the ballot papers to create a ground for treating the ballot to have been invalidly

cast. In the said context, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that Presiding Officer

had made a deliberate effort to deface eight ballots, which were cast in favour of

the appellant therein. The said observations made taking note of an electoral

misconduct by the Presiding Officer himself.

20. The judgment of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction

No.13098 of 2024, relied upon by the petitioner is also distinguishable. In as

much as in the said case, State Election Commission itself was of the view that

the Returning Officer has committed dereliction of duties and has misused his

powers. The facts in the instant case are distinguishable.

21. The prayer sought by the petitioner is for setting aside of Form-II

declaration dated 25.10.2026, where under the unofficial respondent has been

15

declared elected. In the said regard, in the light of the provisions of Article

243ZG(b) of the Constitution of India, and judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court referred supra, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant Writ

Petition.

22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However the petitioner is

at liberty to pursue its alternative remedies available under law. The observations

made herein above are only for the purpose of deciding the instant Writ Petition.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

_______________________________

JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Dated:28-10-2026

MVK

16

79

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 31179 of 2026

Date:28.10.2026

MVK