SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(SC) 299

P.S.KAILASAM, R.S.SARKARIA
Thammanna – Appellant
Versus
K. Veera Reddy – Respondent


Advocates:
A.SUBBA RAO, Govindan Nair, K.RAM KUMAR, P.P.RAI, T.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Venkatarnmaiah

Judgement Key Points
  • The appeal is against the High Court's dismissal of an election petition challenging the returned candidate's election on grounds of disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. (!) [1000188980001][1000188980002]

  • All candidates, including the appellant (who secured only 822 votes), were impleaded as respondents in the election petition, but the appellant did not file a written statement, lead evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or participate in arguments before the High Court. [1000188980001][1000188980002]

  • Preliminary objection raised: The appellant lacks locus standi to appeal as he is not a "person aggrieved" since no relief was claimed against him, he was impleaded formally, did not participate, and was not adversely affected by the dismissal. [1000188980003]

  • Argument in reply: As a party under Section 86(4), the appellant is entitled to appeal if aggrieved; election petitions are representative actions, allowing any aggrieved party, including respondents, to appeal akin to Sections 109/110 provisions. [1000188980004][1000188980005][1000188980006]

  • Section 87(1) applies Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to election petition trials where consistent with the Act; Section 98 lists possible High Court orders (dismissal, voiding election, or declaring another elected). [1000188980007] (!) (!) (!) [1000188980008]

  • Section 116A allows appeals to Supreme Court from High Court orders under Sections 98/99; Section 116C mandates hearing appeals per CPC as for civil appeals, subject to the Act. [1000188980009] (!) [1000188980010] (!) [1000188980011]

  • Right to appeal under Section 116C requires: (1) conclusive High Court determination of rights in controversy; (2) appellant was a party; (3) appellant is "person aggrieved" (adversely affected). [1000188980012][1000188980013][1000188980014] (!) (!) (!)

  • Appellant fails conditions (1) and (3): Did not join controversy, file pleadings, or participate; controversy only between petitioner and returned candidate; not obligatory to implead appellant under Section 82. [1000188980014] (!) [1000188980015]

  • "Person aggrieved" means one suffering legal grievance, deprived/refused/wrongfully affected in title/right; appellant not adversely affected by dismissal. [1000188980016][1000188980017]

  • Sections 109-116 (Chapter IV: Withdrawal/Abatement of Election Petitions) apply only to High Court stage, not appeals (Chapter IVA); no analogous restrictions on appeal withdrawal under Section 116C/CPC. [1000188980018] (!) (!) [1000188980019][1000188980020][1000188980021][1000188980022][1000188980023]

  • Election petition as representative action limited to Sections 109-116; no right for non-aggrieved respondent/elector to appeal if petitioner does not; appellant took no steps under Section 110(3)(c). [1000188980020][1000188980027][1000188980028]

  • Preliminary objection upheld; appeal dismissed as appellant not "person aggrieved," lacking locus standi under Section 116C. [1000188980029] (!) (!)


Judgment

KAILASAM, J.:- This appeal by Shri Thammanna is directed against a judgment, dated April 24, 1979 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, whereby the Election Petition filed by Shri V. Krishna Reddy, respondent 7 herein, against the returned candidate, Shri K. Veera Reddy (Respondent 1 herein) was dismissed. The material facts are these :

2. In the elections held for the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in February, 1978 respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7 and the appellant filed their nominations for Amarchinta Assembly Constituency. Polling took place on February 25, 1978, and Shri K. Veera Reddy, respondent 1, was declared elected on February 27, 1978. He secured 34727 votes while his nearest rival, respondent 2, got 29,419 votes. The appellant obtained 822 votes only.

3. Shri V. Krishna Reddy, (Respondent 7 herein), being a voter for 198 Amarchinta Assembly Constituency in Mahabunagar District filed an election petition in the High Court to get the election of the first respondent declared void on the ground that on the date of filing the nomination paper as well as on the date of the election, this respondent had subsisting contracts with the Government of Andhra Pradesh and, as su










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top