A.P.H.C.CASE LAW - ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

freedom of voting is a part of the freedom of expression. It is further observed that secrecy of casting vote is necessary for strengthening democracy. It is further observed that in direct elections of Lok Sabha or State Legislature, maintenance of secrecy is a must and is insisted upon all over the world in democracies where direct elections are involved to ensure that a voter casts his vote without any fear or being victimised if his vote is disclosed. It is further observed that democracy and free elections are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It is also further observed that the election is a mechanism which ultimately represents the will of the people. The essence of the electoral system should be to ensure freedom of voters to exercise their free choice. Therefore, any attempt of booth capturing and/or bogus voting should be dealt with iron hands because it ultimately affects the rule of law and democracy. Nobody can be permitted to dilute the right to free and fair election.

Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(4)/3(15)/3(5) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was required before triggering any prosecution against the Station House Officer for filing/failing to file an FIR and for other criminal acts committed during the discharge of his duties.

What constitutes a contract as per clause (ix) itself includes the NIT, the acceptance of the tender, the formal agreement to be executed between the parties post contractor furnishing all the documents and the bid security amount. The result of the aforesaid is that as rightly held in terms of the impugned order all that the appellants can do is to forfeit the bid security amount and, thus, it was so directed. Since as a pre-condition of any coercive action against the respondent, the High Court called upon the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakh in terms of the interim order dated 04.08.2010, a direction is made to deduct the bid security amount out of the sum of Rs.10 lakh and to refund the balance amount to the respondent. The needful would now have to be done within two months as in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 08.02.2013 such refund has been stayed. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.

On careful examination of the guidelines/ instructions issued in G.O.Rt.No.100, dated 16.07.2021, in the considered opinion of this Court, the guidelines/instructions are issued in the interest of public in general and devotees/Musallies of Muslim community in particular in view of the COVID-19 pandemic which caused loss to the lives of the people of the country never seen before. Lives of the people is important than the religious beliefs. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the G.O.Rt.No.100, dated 16.07.2021 is issued in the interest of public at large in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and as such, it is not violative of Article: 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner is lady who has been taking shelter in the house of her parents at Rajahmundry which is at a distance of 200 kms from Vijayawada. The submissions made by the petitioner in the petition have not been controverted by the respondent who failed to respond to the notice sent to him. It appears that in two cases filed by the petitioner the respondent has made his appearance and that no prejudice will be caused to him if the case filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights is transferred to Family Court at Rajahmundry. The difficulty of the petitioner to attend for each and every adjournment in which is filed by her husband in the court of Judge, Family Court-cum-XIV Additional and Sessions Court, Vijayawada by undertaking journey of 200 kms from the place of her residence at Rajahmundry can be a reasonable ground to accede to her request made for transfer of HMOP filed by her husband for restitution of conjugal rights to the Family Court at Rajahmundry.