L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS application is filed by the 1st respondent in the Election Petition, under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil procedure (CPC) and Section 86 of the representation of the People Act (43 of 1951) (for short the Act ), to reject and dismiss the Election Petition, on the ground that the same does not disclose cause of action and does not conform to the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the Election Petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, Regu Mahesh @ regu Maheshwar Rao, an Advocate, practising at Saluru, Vizianagaram District, filed Election Petition No. 14 of 1999, seeking a declaration that the election of the 1st respondent, Sri Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Deo, to the Legislative Assembly in the State of andhra Pradesh, from the 10-Saluru (ST) legislative Assembly Constituency, in the elections held on 6-10-1999, as void and set aside the same.

( 3 ) THE facts pleaded by the petitioner are as under:

( 4 ) THE petitioner is an Elector, having been registered as voter in Part 74 of saluru town and resident of the said town. 10-Saluru (ST) Assembly Constituency is reserved for Schedule Tribe. The 1st respondent contested in the election from the said constituency on behalf of the telugu Desam Party. He does not belong to ST community as declared by the president of India under the Schedule Tribes order, 1996. On the other hand, he belongs to Kshathriya caste.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has raised objections when the 1st respondent filed nomination, but the objections were overruled. The 1st respondent had declared himself as belonging to Kshathriya caste when he got admitted in the school at Pedakomatipeta, at Saluru. In certain documents executed by the ancestors of the 1st respondent, their caste was declared as Kshathirya.

( 6 ) THE Govemment of Andhra Pradesh had requested the District Collector, vizianagaram, to enquirie into the social status of the 1 st respondent vide Memo dated 22-4-1999 in accordance with the Rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 58 dated 12-5-1997, framed under the A. P. (Scheduled Castes, scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 (Act 16 of 1993) ( for short the State Act ). The 1st respondent has procured a false certificate from the concerned authorities, both when the elections were held in 1994 and in 1999.

( 7 ) THE petitioner has also alleged that the elder brother of the 1 st respondent has obtained a similar certificate and on the basis of the same, got appointed as District judge. WP No. 30827/98 was filed for issuance of writ of quo-warranto against him alleging that he belongs Kshathriya community and does belong to ST community.

( 8 ) THE petitioner also alleged that the 1st respondent has played fraud on the constitution of India, and mischief, fraud and deception on the voters of the constituency by claiming the seat meant for st community. The factum of rejection of nomination of certain other candidates on the ground that they do not belong to st community are also referred to in the election Petition.

( 9 ) THE 1st respondent has filed his written statement on receipt of notice in election Petition. He has also filed EA to reject and dismiss the Election Petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the EA. , the 1st respondent alleged that since reference was made to his brother and his social status, he ought to have been impleaded in the Election Petition. He further pleaded that though the Election Petition is filed under Sections 5 and 100 (l) (d) (i) of the Act, several averments were made which are beyond the scope of the said provisions and such averments are to be deleted; Consequently, the Election Petition, as a whole, is liable to be rejected. The 1st respondent has also referred to the averment in Para 9 of the Election Petition, which is to the effect that the Saluru legislative Assembly Constituency is in srikakulam District. According to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document