Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
R.Jayalakshmamma - Appellant
Versus
Election Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor - Respondent
Decided On : 08-27-04
Held : It is well settled that while judicially reviewing the decision of a statutory Tribunal, High Court ordinarily does not substitute its opinion for the opinion or finding recorded by the Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Merely because other view is also possible from such reappreciation of same evidence, it cannot be a ground for high Court to deviate from the finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal, re-appreciate the evidence on record and give its own finding which is different from the finding recorded by the Tribunal. It is axiomatic that the Court of judicial review is not an Appellate Court and the Court essentially reviews the decision making process rather than decision itself. Nonetheless, it is also settled that when the question is raised that the Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error or committed grave error apparent on the face of the record while appreciating the evidence, recording findings of fact and applying law to such findings on fact, the Court of judicial review can always; curiously though, look into the evidence to see whether the finding of fact is perverse and whether the proper principles of appreciation of evidence have been applied to the facts. Even after such exercise, if the Court finds that the findings are grounded on substantially acceptable evidence, the findings cannot be upset and reappreciation of evidence as an Appellate Court is not within the purview of judicial review.
Yet another well settled principle is that it is not every error can be corrected in judicial review. Only grave error apparent on the face of the record would be amenable for judicial scrutiny.
A writ Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own opinion for the opinion of Inferior Tribunal even if it is satisfied that the decision is wrong. It is also well settled that the writ Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and every wrong order cannot be quashed by issuing certiorari. In the absence of any fundamental flaws, the Court cannot exercise certiorari jurisdiction.
( 1 ) INTRODUCTION: these two writ petitions are filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the common order of the Election Tribunal-cum-Senior civil Judge, Punganur, in O. P. Nos. 12 and 14 of 2001, dated 3. 8. 2004. Hence, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. By the impugned order, the learned Election Tribunal set aside the election of the petitioner as Zilla Parishad territorial Constituency (ZPTC) Member of chowdepalle Mandal and further declared, smt. Chandravadana W/o. Venkataramana raju (second respondent in Writ Petition no. 14181 and third respondent in Writ petition No. 14461 of 2004), as duly elected candidate of ZPTC Member of Chowdepalle mandal. In this common order, the parties shall be referred to by their status in Writ petition No. 14461 of 2004.
( 2 ) IN consonance with Part IX of the constitution of India, Andhra Pradesh panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the act) envisages three-tier Panchayat Raj system. The apex tier constituted under section 177 of the Act is called, Zilla parishad. It consists of Zilla Parishad territorial Constituencies and as per section 178 of the Act every Mandal in the district shall be a territorial constituency and members are elected by method of secret ballot by the registered voters in the territorial constituency concerned. Sections 183 and 184 deal with qualification and disqualification of the candidates respectively. Sub-section (1) of section 184, disqualifies a person to be a member ZPTC if such candidate is interested in a subsisting contract with Mandal parishad or Zilla Parishad. Sub-section (2) of Section 184 applies the provisions of sections 18 to 22 of the Act to ZPTC member as they apply to a Member of gram Panchayat. Be it noted under section 19 (3), a person having more than two children shall be disqualified for election as Member. The first proviso to sub-section (3) contains an exception to the general rule. It provides that if the birth of additional child (third child) is within one year from the date of commencement, the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of Section 19 (3) of the Act. The Act came into force on 30. 5. 1994, as notified by the Government of Andhra pradesh vide G. O. Ms. No. 304 dated 25. 5. 1994. The second proviso to subsection (3) of Section 19 further clarifies that a person having more than two children excluding the additional third child bom within one year from the date of commencement of the Act shall not be disqualified so long as the number of the children on the date of commencement does not increase. Therefore, if the additional/third child is born to a person between the period 30. 5. 1994 to 29. 5. 1995, the same shall have no effect on the general principle and still such person can contest the election. If a person has three children including additional third child born after 29. 5. 1995 such person shall be disqualified for being elected as member of any panchayat body under the act including Zilla Parishad. Background Facts
( 3 ) THE election for Chowdepalli ZPTC was held on 12. 7. 2001. The petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 were the three candidates in the fray as they only filed valid nominations. The counting took place on 17. 1. 2001 and the petitioner was declared elected for ZPTC Member, Chowdepalle. As per Section 233 of the Act no election held under the Act shall be called in question except by way of an election petition presented to such authority in accordance with the rules as may be made in that behalf. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of their powers under Section 233 and Section 268 (1) of the Act have promulgated the rules called, the Andhra pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for short, the Rules ). Second respondent filed such election petition being O. P. No. 12 of 2001 praying the learned Election Tribunal to set aside the electi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
