G. Venkata Reddy vs M. Narayana Rao

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1976 Supreme(SC) 323

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA, N.L. UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
G. Venkata Reddy, Appellant
Versus
M. Narayana Rao and others, Respondents.
In Civil Appeal No. 686 of 1974.
In Civil Appeal No. 583 of 1974.
Civil Appeals Nos. 583 and 686 of 1974,
D/-3-9-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M.C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate (M/s. K. Krishna Rao, K. Rajindra Choudhry and Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna, Advocates with him), for Appeallant in C. A No. 583 of 1974; Mr. A.K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (M/s. I. Kotireddy and G.N. Rao, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 1 in C.A. No. 583 of 1974 and also for Appellant in c.A. NO. 686 of 1974.

Headnote:
Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 116A - Election – Allegations - Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Constituency- Six persons had filed nominations for standing as candidates at election- Four them who were impleaded as respondents in election petition withdrew in time and did not contest election- only two persons left in field for contest were two appellants in two appeals appellant in Civil hereinafter referred to as or respondent (for brevity respondent according to his position in election petition and Reddy appellant in Civil Appeal -hereinafter to be called Reddy or election petitioner- was declared elected a margin of a few hundred votes- Reddy challenged his election by filing an election petition under Act on several grounds of corrupt practices said to have been committed by or on behalf also on ground that several malpractices and mistakes had taken place in counting of votes- Reddy in his election petition besides asking for setting aside of election of Rao also claimed that he should be declared elected in his place –Held, Provided that where returning officer is satisfied that any such defect as is mentioned in clause has been caused by any mistake or failure on part of a presiding officer or polling officer ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on ground of such defect consideration of evidence adduced by parties and broad probabilities and circumstances of case High Court has come to conclusion and in our opinion rightly that said two groups of ballot papers were rightly not rejected by Returning Officer and were correctly counted - Returning Officer while accepting a ballot paper even though he does so under proviso aforesaid is not required to record any reasons for acceptance- Reddy had not made out any case that any objection had been taken on his behalf as respects acceptance of above mentioned votes of two groups- No objection was specifically raised in election petition that any of ballot papers counted in favour of Rao should have been rejected or that it could not be accepted under proviso- Reddy seems to have fished in troubled waters because of order of recount made by High Court in connection with some other defects which justified making of such an order- finding of High Court in clearest term which could not be assailed before us with any success is as follows Having regard to above discussion it cannot be held that in instant case ballot papers which did not contain both distinguishing mark and signature of Presiding or Polling Officer or where either signature or mark was not present were accepted by Returning Officer without satisfying as to whether that defect was due to mistake or failure of Presiding Officer or Polling Officer- As that is not established and as it is also clear to Court from record placed before it that these defects have occurred only due to failure of Presiding Officer and further as there is no doubt as to genuineness of these ballot papers it is held that ballot papers were rightly accepted by Returning Officer - Order accordingly

Judgment

UNTWALIA , J. :- These are two appeals under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - hereinafter referred to as the Act, arising out of an election dispute concerning the election held on the 5th and 8th of March, 1972 to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Purchur Constituency. Six persons had filed nominations for standing as candidates at the election. Four of them, who were impleaded as respondents 2 to 5 in the election petition, withdrew in time and did not contest the election. The only two persons left in the field for a straigth contest were the two appellants in the two appeals namely M. Narayana Rao. appellant in Civil Appeal No.583 of 1974-hereinafter referred to as Rao or respondent No. 1 (for brevity, the respondent ) according to his position in the election petition and G. Venkata Reddy, appellant in Civil Appeal 686 of 1974-hereinafter to be called Reddy or the election petitioner. Rao was declared elected on the 11th March, 1972 by a margin of a few hundred votes. Reddy challenged his election by filing an election petition under the Act on several grounds of corrupt practices said to have been committted by or on behalf of Rao as also on the ground that several malpractices and mistakes had taken place in the counting of the votes. Reddy in his election petition besides asking for the setting aside of the election of Rao, also claimed that he should be declared elected in his place. A learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a very long, elaborate, exhaustive, which at times was exhausting, judgment has accepted the case of the election petitioner in regard to one type of currupt practice having been committed on behalf of the respondent and set aside his election. Rao has preferred the appeal from the said order. A recount of the votes polled was ordered by the learned Judge and even after re-examination of the validity or invalidity of certain votes, he found on recount, that Rao had still majority of votes in his favour although the margin was further reduced. In that view of the matter, Reddys prayer for being declared elected was refused by the High Court. Hence Reddys appeal. Both the appeals arising out of the same election petition have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We would like to state at the outset that even in regard to the limited questions which fell for our determination in these appeals, the judgment of the High Court is so lengthy and cumbersome, at times suffering from unnecessary repetitions and discussions, that while, discussing the main issues in these appeals, we have not thought it necessary to meet and deal with all the reasonings of the High Court although in arriving at the decision we have taken them into consideration. If we do so, our judgment will also be unnecessarily very long. But we must record our appreciation for the tremendous labour put in the High Court by lawyers on either side and the very great pains which the learned Judge has taken in preparing a careful and exhaustive judgment both on facts and in law.

3. Reddy contested the election as a candidate of the Indian National Congress Party and Rao was an Independent candidate. Reddys election symbol was "Cow and Calf while that of Rao was a "Tractor". The polling in the Constituency was held on the 5th of March, 1972. Due to disturbances at the 8 polling booths at China Ganjam with which we shall be concerned in Raos appeal, polling had to be postponed to the 8th of March, 1972 on which date the polling was completed at China Canjam. At the counting of votes done on the 11th of March, 1972 the Sub-Collector, Ongole, who was the Returning Officer of the Constituency, found that Rao had polled 31,038 votes while the votes polled by Redddy were only 30,728 Approximately 1,398 votes were declared as invalid by the Returning Officer. It may just be stated here that the total number of electorates in Purchur Constituency was 77

Click Here to Read the rest of this document