The authorities should be specific in holding the elections at least this time
Representational image
Hyderabad: Sivaraju Srinivas, appearing for Forum for Good Governance, the petitioner, said that he was not objecting to the application for extension of time to hold the GHMC polls, but the authorities should be specific in holding the elections at least this time.
Telangana state advocate-general K. Ramakrishna Reddy said that the GHMC had not been able to complete the pre-election process, which included delimitation and reservation of wards due to the seeding of voter ID cards with Aadhaar card data as per the directions of the Election Commission of India.
He said that the GHMC would complete the pre-election process by December 15, 2015, and 45 days would be required for the SEC to hold the elections and the entire process would be completed by the end of January 2016.
The bench said it would not consider any oral assurance and if any responsible officer, either the chief secretary or a principal secretary, filed a sworn affidavit only then would it look into the matter. It then adjourned the case to 12.30 pm.
When the bench resumed hearing, the advocate-general submitted that the GHMC commissioner had filed the affidavit assuring that the election process would be completed by January 31. While considering the affidavit and also recording the statement of the A-G on behalf the state government, the bench granted time by cautioning that it would not entertain any applications seeking further extension of time to hold the elections.
Bench expresses displeasure:
During Monday's hearing, the bench expressed displeasure at an advocate who intervened and tried to bring up the topic of the alleged mass deletion of votes in the city by the GHMC.
When he tried to explain to the bench that the Election Commission had intervened in the deletion of voters following a complaint from them, the bench asked the advocate whether he had filed any plea in this regard.
The advocate replied in the negative and attempted to continue his arguments.
The bench then expressed displeasure at the advocate and said that it would not allow him to argue without filing a petition.
( Source : deccan chronicle )
Next Story
