L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Principal senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in O. P. No. 103 of 2001 dated 15-4-2003.

( 2 ) THE O. P. was filed by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, challenging the election of the petitioner as member of zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) Peddapudi of East Godavari district in the elections held on 15-7-2001. Through its order dated 15-4-2003, the Trial court had set aside the election of the petitioner and directed recounting of the polled votes. The petitioner contends that the order of the Trial Court is contrary to law and opposed to the facts.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to him, the Trial Court has misdirected itself in setting aside the election and thereafter directing recounting of votes. It is urged that not even an issue was framed as regards recounting of votes and simply by jumping to certain conclusions, it had set aside the election and directed recounting of votes.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that he had raised several grounds in challenging the election of the petitioner. It is stated that the Trial Court was satisfied that the corrupt practices pleaded in the election petition, or at least some of them were proved and thereby the election is set aside. The grant of relief of recounting is claimed to be consequent on setting aside the elections.

( 5 ) SRI Vedula Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent had made vague alegations in the election petition and did not even plead a case for recounting, much less, for setting aside the elections. According to him, recounting is a step, which can be undertaken by the Trial Court only on being satisfied on the basis of definite pleadings and cogent evidence, and at any rate it cannot be a step after setting aside the election. So far as setting aside of the election is concerned, he submits that an election can be set aside if only, the corrupt practices or other important grounds as provided for under the relevant rules are pleaded and established on evidence and the question of setting aside the election without framing issues, much less without recording findings thereon, does not arise.

( 6 ) SRI V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Trial Court has taken a comprehensive view of the pleadings as well as the evidence on record and on being satisfied that the corrupt practices pleaded against the petitioner are proved, it had set aside the election. According to him, the Trial Court had directed recounting of the votes so that there does not exist any vacuum in the office, and this relief was in response to a specific prayer by the 2nd respondent.

( 7 ) IN the elections held on 15-7-2001, the writ petitioner was elected as member of zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC), Peddapudi of East Godavari District. The allegation against the petitioner was that he has threatened the 2nd respondent and his agents from canvassing in Peddapudi village. It is also alleged that the petitioner did not permit free exercise of franchise by the voters and at the instance of the petitioner and his agents, large scale rigging has taken place. The sharp increase of the percentage of polling during the last hour from 46% to 86% is pleaded as one of the factors. The further allegation is as regards the failure of the Election Officer in undertaking recounting, even though the difference between the successful candidate and the next candidate was less than 1%.

( 8 ) IN support of his contentions, the 2nd respondent has examined himself as P. W. 1 and P. Ws. 2 to 6 and marked exs. A. 1 to A. 5. The writ petitioner examined himself as R. W. 3. In addition to examining r. Ws. 1 and 2, he has marked documents exs. B. 1 to B. 12. After discussing the evidence and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties the trial court passed the order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document