Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARSIMHA REDDY
J.Pushpalatha - Appellant
Versus
Election Tribunal, Bhongir, Nalgonda District - Respondent
Decided On : 12-10-02
Held : While dealing with the orders of inferior Tribunals, in its certiorari jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in appeal against such orders. Even where a different view is possible on the same set of facts and evidence, the finding recorded by the tribunal cannot be disturbed. It is rather a decision making process, and not the decision itself, that will be the concern of this court. In one after the other cases, attempts were made to delineate and circumscribe the jurisdiction. Concepts, such as, "error apparent on the face of the record", cases having been decided, "on no evidence", "eschewing admissible evidence" etc. , emerged. While the purport of all these concepts indicated towards the restraint to be maintained, the extent of exercise or restraint, by its very nature, was left to be felt by the Courts, guided by the broad principles. Even if, all the principles laid down in authoritative precedents are put together, it cannot be said that they represent the law on the subject as a whole.
Undoubtedly, this Court has the power to review the decision making process of the Tribunal. The various steps involved in the cases before the Tribunal till they culminate in the rendering of decision are part of the whole process. It cannot be denied that examination of pleadings, appreciation of evidence which includes acceptance or rejection of the oral or documentary evidence that may have been adduced before the Tribunal constitutes one of the facets of the decision making process. Examination as to whether it has taken into account inadmissible or irrelevant evidence has been taken into account or whether relevant or admissible evidence has been eschewed is a recognised area of judicial review. It is in undertaking such review, the court has to be cautious, not to play the role of an appellate authority and to concede the freedom of the Tribunal to act within the framework of the law under which it was constituted. Therefore, in matters of this nature this Court can neither sit as an appellate authority nor can feel such a restraint as not to examine the order of the tribunal at all. It is rather a striking of balance between these two, guided by certain principles of law that needs to be maintained.
( 1 ) THE office of Sarpanch of Rusthapur gram Panchayat, Turkapally Mandal, nalgonda District, was reserved in favour of women. The elections to the Gram panchayat were held on 20-8-2001. The writ petitioner, the respondent No. 4 and another candidate contested in that election. The petitioner was declared as elected. Challenging the election of the petitioner, the 4th respondent filed O. P. No. 4 of 2001 before the 1st respondent-Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ). The main ground of challenge to the election of the petitioner was that she incurred disqualification under Section 19 (3) of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act ) and that, she has given birth to third child on 19-2-1996. Though there was a general allegation of irregularity and corrupt practice, the same was not pressed during the trial.
( 2 ) THE petitioner resisted the O. P. It was her case that she gave birth to third child on 19-2-1995 and she did not incur any disqualification under Section 19 (3) of the act. It was her case that she did not suppress any material fact and the Returning officer has accepted her nomination having been, duly satisfied about the compliance with the various provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
( 3 ) TAKING into account the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the petitioner has proved that R-1 has violated conditions laid down under Section 19 (3) of A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and resorted to several irregularities, illegalities and corrupt practices including manipulation of date of birth of her 3rd issue, filed false nomination, to enable her to grant relief No. 1 in her favour as prayed for? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as having been elected as Sarpanch of Rustapur (V), turkapally (M) Nalgonda District? (3) To what relief?
( 4 ) ON behalf of the 4th respondent, p. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and documents exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein, R. Ws. 1 to 6 were marked and Exs. B-1 to B-7 were marked. In addition to the same, the Court had taken on record the documents in Ex. C-1 and exs. X-1 and X-2.
( 5 ) ON appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the tribunal through its order dated 25-10-2002 has taken the view that the petitioner has incurred the disqualification under Sec. 19 (3), and accordingly, has set aside her election. It was declared that the 4th respondent shall be treated as having been elected. Hence, the writ petition.
( 6 ) WHEN the writ petition came up for admission on 1-11-2002, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent took notice and insisted that instead of granting any stay and keeping the matter pending, the writ can be disposed of finally by hearing the parties at the admission stage. The matter was accordingly heard extensively at the admission stage and taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties.
( 7 ) SMT. N. Shoba, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the third child of the petitioner, by name, omprakash, is 19-2-1995 and the allegation of the 4th respondent that his date of birth is on 19-2-1996, is not correct. It is her contention that the sole basis for the Election tribunal in recording a finding that the petitioner gave birth to third child on 19-2-1996, is the extract of Register of Births and Deaths, marked as Ex. C-1 and the same does not contain the name of the petitioner at all. She contends that the name of the person entered in Ex. C-1 is different from that of the petitioner and there warneither pleading nor evidence to connect the same to the petitioner. It is also her contention that the 4th respondent had miserably failed to establish that the entry in ex. C-1 relates to the petitioner, and at any rate, the petitioner herein has clinchingly established through documents such as ex. B-1, that the date of birth of her child is 19-2-1995.
( 8 ) SRI A. Rajasekhar
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
