Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, T.CH.SURYA RAO
Sadhanapalli Bheemaraju - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, A.P.Legislative Assembly, Hyd, - Respondent
Decided On : 12-31-04
Representation of the people Act, 1951 –Sections 5, 82,86, 15 –Constitution of India –Article 329 (b) –Issue on Documents, Fraud, Election Petition –The petitioners seek to place reliance upon certain documents annexed to the writ petition – On the side of the sixth respondent, he too filed certain documents as material papers –For convenience sake it is expedient to assign exhibit numbers to those documents so that they can conveniently be referred to and discussed – learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners represents that the judgment of this Court in clearly shows that the father of the sixth respondent is a Scheduled Caste person and what more evidence is required than that – It is further represented that since it is a fraud played upon the constitution, the writ petition can be maintained –Finally, he represents that in view of the judgment in it is no more disputed fact and can squarely be considered –Held, Turning to the facts in the instant case, by no stretch of the imagination, it can legitimately be contended before us that by accepting the nomination of the sixth respondent, albeit erroneously the process of election has not been stopped –Such an erroneous decision in the view of the petitioners shall have to be questioned only by means of a properly constituted election petition – In that view of the matter and for the reasons hereinabove discussed, the writ petition must fail – if it is a clear case of playing fraud on the Constitution the jurisdiction of the High court can be invoked –Thus, the jurisdiction under the Constitution of India has been carved out in respect of specified areas which cannot be illustrated in exhaustive manner but which have the effect of interfering with free flow of the scheduled election or hindering the progress of the election – Writ Petition dismissed
( 1 ) THE petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, declaring that respondent No. 6 is not qualified to sit as a member of Legislative Assembly in Andhra pradesh as he does not possess the basic qualification prescribed under Clause 3 (a) of article 190 of the Constitution of India read with Section 5 of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 and consequently No. 38 yeliavaram (ST) Assembly Constituency has fallen vacant. Alternatively, the petitioners also seek a writ of quo warranto directing the sixth respondent to show under what authority he is occupying the seat as member of the A. P. Legislative Assembly representing the 38th Yeliavaram (ST) constituency and for a further direction to the first respondent not to permit the sixth respondent to function as Member of the a. P. Legislative Assembly.
( 2 ) THE facts lie in a narrow compass? the first petitioner claiming himself to be a tribal and resident of Mallavaram Mamilla village which is a part of Yeliavaram assembly segment; the second petitioner claiming himself to be the voter of the said assembly segment and political activist of the Indian National Congress; and the third petitioner professing to be a Scheduled tribe candidate, together filed the present writ petition. The third petitioner contested in the election to the A. P. State Legislative assembly from Yeliavaram Assembly constituency and eventually lost the election qua the sixth respondent. Petitioners claim that they are interested in seeing that no. 38 Yeliavaram Assembly Constituency is represented by Scheduled Tribe alone, filed the writ petition as aforesaid assailing the election of the sixth respondent.
( 3 ) BY means of a notification dated 24. 3. 2004, notice of election in Form?i was issued. Pursuant thereto, nominations were filed and the Returning Officer received them upto 31. 3. 2004. The third petitioner filed his nomination on behalf of the Indian national Congress, whereas the sixth respondent filed his nomination as a candidate of Telugu Desam Party. Objections seem to have been filed against the nomination of sixth respondent on the premise that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and he belongs to Adi Andhra Mala Caste, which is a Scheduled Caste. Rejecting all objections, nomination of the sixth respondent was accepted by the Returning Officer. Election to the said Assembly Constituency was conducted on 26. 4. 2004, and counting of the votes took place on 11. 5. 2004. The sixth respondent was declared to have been duly elected at the culmination of counting process. Consequently the statutory notification dated 12. 5. 2004 of the Election commission of India was published in the a. P. Gazette, containing the names of the members who have been duly elected to the State Legislative Assembly.
( 4 ) THAT Valmiki community in Agency tracks is a Scheduled Tribe notified as per the provisions of the Constitution. However, some persons from Mala Caste, which is a Scheduled Caste, claiming themselves to be the descendants of valmiki, have been seeking Scheduled Tribe status. When several persons from Scheduled caste sought to get a clearance from the government to get the status of Valmiki and claimed the status of Scheduled Tribe, courts came down heavily and set aside the orders in that regard. The father of the sixth respondent got elected to the A. P. State Legislative Assembly as a Scheduled tribe candidate. However, his election was challenged in the Election Petition No. 12 of 1985. That Election Petition was allowed declaring that the father of the sixth respondent was Adi Andhra which is a scheduled Caste and he did not belong to scheduled Tribe community and consequently his election was set aside. The petitioners upon making enquiries which took a long time for securing the copy of judgment in election Petition No. 12 of 1985 on the file of High Court of A. P. , ultimately realized that the certificate issued by the Revenue authorities in favour of the sixth re
SupremeToday
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
