( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I. A. No. 946/2001 in e. O. P. No. 3/2001 dated 28-3-2002 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil judge, Vinukonda in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to dismiss the Election Petition No. 32001 for non- compliance of Rule 3 (2) of A. P. Panchayat raj (Election Tribunal in respect of Gram panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla parishads) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as rules, 1995 ).

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent herein filed the said Election Petition against the Election officer, District Election Authority, additional District Election Authority, election Commission, petitioner herein and four others who contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram panchayat, Guntur District. The petitioner herein is the 5th respondent in the Election petition and he is the Returned Candidate who has been declared elected as Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat.

( 3 ) IT is stated in the Election Petition that the Vinukonda Gram Panchayat is reserved for general woman in the elections held on 20-8-2001. It is stated that after polling was over, the counting of votes was not done by the Election Officer properly and fairly by following the procedure under law. The election Officer committed several irregularities, improprieties and illegalities. He violated the counting procedure very openly. He acted in a clear partisan and biased manner in favour of the petitioner herein and against the 1st respondent. The petitioner herein has been declared elected as Sarpanch on the basis of incorrect and false counting with a majority of 224 votes. The petitioner herein secured 9353 votes while the 1st respondent (Election Petitioner) secured 9,129 votes. The other respondent Nos. 6 to 9 secured 164, 423, 132 and 41 votes respectively, 662 Votes were declared as invalid. The total number of votes polled were 19,904. It is further submitted that after the polling was completed, the Election Officer ought to have intimated to the 1st respondent in advance, the place and time of counting and the number of counting tables, Arranged for the purpose as per rules. He did not do so deliberately and kept the petitioner in darkness in that regard. He arranged in all 30 counting tables in two rows opposite to each other in u fashion, while there was a block at u shape curve which prevents the candidates and their election agents to move freely from one side to the other so as to observe counting position in both the sides. Further, one has to come out of the counting room and go inside again through different door from one side of 15 tables to the other side of 15 tables. It became impossible to observe and supervise the counting tables. The Election Officer, in the first instance, announced that there would be 10 counting tables and later on they were increased to 20 tables and finally to 30 tables. He did it at his will and pleasure. Another illegal act committed by the Election Officer was that he opened the ballot boxes in the absence of the Election Petitioner, her election agent and counting agent. He also got counting carried out even before the Election petitioner and counting agents arrived at their respective tables. The ballot papers were sorted out candidate-wise without any opportunity being given to the counting agents for scrutiny for the purpose of their validity or otherwise. Arbitrariness ruled to the roost in declaring the ballot papers valid or invalid, rejected or doubtful votes ought to have been kept separately and subjected to further scrutiny and it was also not done in spite of repeated requests made by the election petitioner. The counting was carried on in a hurried manner so as not to allow the election Petitioner or her counting agent to closely scrutinize the ballot papers. There was a total pell-mell in the counting hall. Immediately after counting was over, the election Officer informed that