( 1 ) THE petitioner was elected as sarpanch in the election for the office of sarpanch of lemarthi agraharam village, paravada mandal, visakhapatnam district. The petitioner herein secured 444 votes, first respondent secured 443 votes, and another contestant, Sri narsinga rao, secured 130 votes. The petitioner s election was challenged by first respondent in e. o. p. No. 22 of 2001 on the file of the court of principal junior civil judge-cum- election tribunal, anakapalli. The only ground on which the election of the petitioner was challenged is that the votes in booth No. 5 at serial NOS. 792 and 793 of lemarthi agraharam village are also registered voters of edulapaka bonangi village at serial NOS. 981 and 982 of the voters list of the said village, and that those two voters having voted in both gram panchayat elections those two votes are invalid votes. The petitioner herein opposed the election petition inter alia contending that he is not aware whether the two voters who allegedly are registered voters of another village are voted in favour of petitioner, that the election petition is barred by limitation and that petitioner is not aggrieved party.

( 2 ) THE election tribunal-cum-court of principal junior civil judge, anakapalli, by order dated 13. 10. 2004 set aside the election of the petitioner and further declared that first respondent is duly elected to the office of the sarpanch. The election tribunal recorded a finding that the two persons are disqualified because they have already cast their vote in e. Bonangi village before reaching lemarthi agraharam village. Be it also noted that first respondent examined p. ws. l to 6, and marked exs. a. l to a. 10 and petitioner examined r. ws. l and 2 besides marking exs. b. l to b. 7. Apart from this, exs. x. 1 to x. 13 were also marked by the court. A counter-affidavit is filed by first respondent opposing the writ petition contending that the impugned order of the learned tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity for want of jurisdiction, that the two votes of medisetti raju and medisetti venkatalaxmi from out of 444 votes are invalid and as first respondent got 443 votes, the learned tribunal was correct in declaring the first respondent as elected.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of the a. p. panchayat raj Act, 1994 (for short, the act ) or the Rules made thereunder, there is no prohibition for a person to be registered as voter in two gram panchayats and therefore the learned tribunal committed grave error in treating the vote of p. w. 4 and his wife as invalid. Secondly, he contends that the order of the learned tribunal declaring first respondent s election is vitiated, as first respondent did not specifically ask for any such relief. Learned counsel placed reliance on sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the act and Rules 13 and 15 of the andhra pradesh panchayat raj (election tribunals in respect of gram panchayats, mandal parishads and zilla parishads) rules, 1995 (hereafter called, the rules ). Learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the division bench judgment of this court in K. Sundara Rao v. V. Raghava Rao, 1983 (ii) Anwr 412 (DB ).

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for first respondent Sri upendra, representing Sri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, opposed the writ petition contending that the impugned order of the learned tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and that the division bench judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application.

( 5 ) THE two points that arise for consideration are (1) whether the act or any provisions in any of the Rules made under the act prohibit a person from voting in more than one gram panchayat ? And (2) whether it would be valid for the election tribunal to declare the election petitioner as duly elected after setting aside the election of the person whose election is challenged ? In re point No. (1)

( 6 ) THE decision in K. Sundara Rao v.