B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the petitioner to have been duly elected as Sarpanch of Reddicherla Gram panchayat, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam district in the elections held on 17-8-2001.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether any such relief could be granted by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, it maybe necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts: the election for electing the members end Sarpanach of Reddicherla Gram panchayat was held on 17-8-2001. The petitioner as well as respondents 4 and 5 contested the election to the office of the sarpanch of Gram Panchayat.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that while counting the votes, the counting staff committed various frregularities. Several votes polled in favour of the petitioner were counted in favour of the 4th respondent. 55 votes were kept aside as doubtful votes. Before scrutiny of 55 doubtful votes and before the completion of counting process, respondents 4 and 5 and their chief counting agents pressurised the first respondent and "extracted the declaration in Form No. 19" as if the 4th respondent was elected. It is alleged that the first respondent left the counting hall by so declaring even before all the votes were counted. It is at that stage, the petitioner filed a petition for recounting of all the votes including the doubtful votes and the votes that were already counted. The declaration so made by the first respondent- election Officer was put in issue.

( 4 ) IT is further alleged that the first respondent-Election Officer did not scrutinise 55 doubtful votes at all and he has not made any endorsement on each ballot paper stating the ground on which it was rejected before giving declaration in form No. 19 to the 4th respondent. The election Officer failed to enter the particulars of votes polled in favour of each candidate in the result sheet in Form No. 17.

( 5 ) IT is however, stated that the first respondent Election Officer on an application filed by the petitioner for recounting of all the votes, counted the doubtful votes and found 15 valid votes polled in his favour. Thereafter, the first respondent Election Officer is stated to have declared the petitioner to have been duly elected as Sarpanch. Accordingly, a declaration in Form No. 19 was given to the petitioner also. Thereafter, the first respondent Election Officer sent a letter dated 18-8-2001 to the Mandal development Officer detailing the incident leading to the declaration of result in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent Election Officer sealed the election material and handed over the same to the Police Station, Komarole for safe custody.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER, the 4th respondent and his supporters got prepared another letter addressed to the Mandal Development officer and forcibly obtained the signature of the first respondent Election Officer on 18-8-2001 at 12-30 noon and the purport of the letter is that the petitioner forcibly obtained the declaration in Form No. 19 in his favour. The contents of the said letter, according to the petitioner, are totally false and it was obtained by the 4th respondent from the first respondent Election Officer under duress.

( 7 ) THE first respondent Election Officer failed to administer the oath of the office and, in the circumstances, the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated 19-8-2001 to respondents 2 and 3 narrating the incident and requesting them either to confirm the declaration made in his favour or direct for recount of all the votes polled in the election. Respondents 2 and 3 did not take any decision whatsoever. The petitioner claims to have been duly elected as Sarpanch having secured majority of votes. The declaration given to the 4th respondent declaring him to have been duly elected as Sarpanch is impugned. In nutshell, this is the case of the petitioner.

(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document