Skip to content

The Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. Yanamala Ramakrishnudu, Mla, Telugu Desam and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectElection
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 1347 of 1994 and W.P. No. 18316 of 1994
Judge
Reported in1995(1)ALT28
ActsRepresentation of People Act - Sections 15
AppellantThe Chief Election Commissioner of India
RespondentYanamala Ramakrishnudu, Mla, Telugu Desam and ors.
Appellant AdvocateC.P. Sarathy and ;C. Jayashree Sarathy, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateC.P. Sarathy, ;C. Jayashree Sarathy and ;Sarat Kumar, Advs. for R-1 in W.P., ;Adv. General for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and ;P. Innayya Reddy, Standing Counsel for Central Government for Respondent No.
DispositionAppeal dismissed

Excerpt

.....and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults..........place on 1st and 5th december, 1994. an application for interim relief was also filed. the learned single judge, while declining to pass any interim order, observed that the model code of conduct issued by the election commission of india would be applicable with effect from the date on which the notification under section 15 of the representation of people act, is published.3. since the learned single judge had considered it not necessary to pass any interim order, it was not necessary for him to make the above observation, particularly when the other side had, by that time, not been served with notice and was not represented before the court by any counsel.4. since a request has been made before us by the writ petitioner for permission to withdraw the writ petition, we dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn with the observation that the issue - whether the model code of conduct issued by the election commission of india, would be applicable from the date of notification under section 15 of the representation of people act, or from any earlier date - shall be treated to be still open to be decided in an appropriate writ petition, if and when filed. no. costs.5. in view of the.....

Judgment

S.S. Ahmed, C.J.

1. It is stated by Mr. Sarat Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ petitioner, that he may be permitted to withdraw the main writ petition itself.

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the writ petitioner (first respondent in writ appeal) for a direction by this Court to respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition to follow and observe the model Code of Conduct for the guidance of the political parties and candidates, issued by the Election Commission of India, during the period of elections, which were scheduled to take place on 1st and 5th December, 1994. An application for interim relief was also filed. The learned single Judge, while declining to pass any interim order, observed that the model Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India would be applicable with effect from the date on which the notification Under Section 15 of the Representation of People Act, is published.

3. Since the learned single Judge had considered it not necessary to pass any interim order, it was not necessary for him to make the above observation, particularly when the other side had, by that time, not been served with notice and was not represented before the Court by any counsel.

4. Since a request has been made before us by the writ petitioner for permission to withdraw the writ petition, we dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn with the observation that the issue - whether the Model Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India, would be applicable from the date of notification Under Section 15 of the Representation of People Act, or from any earlier date - shall be treated to be still open to be decided in an appropriate writ petition, if and when filed. No. costs.

5. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn, Writ Appeal No. 1347 of 1994, filed against an interim order, is dismissed subject to the above observations.


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files Start your Free Trial