B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the judgment dated 26-7-2001 in Election petition No. 1 of 2001 on the file of the election Tribunal for Municipal corporations at Hyderabad and quash the same.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the order passed by the Election tribunal for Municipal Corporations at hyderabad constituted under Section 75 (1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations act, 1955 (for short the Election Tribunal ) suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE elections for the office of Mayor, vijayawada Municipal Corporation and corporators for 50 Divisions were held on 9-3-2000. In the said elections, the petitioner and respondents 1 to 7 herein have contested the election for the office of the Mayor. The petitioner herein secured 1,05,169 votes, whereas the first respondent herein secured 98,579 votes out of the total votes polled 2,78,733. In all 5,596 votes were declared as invalid votes. The details of votes secured by other candidates are not necessary to be noticed. The results of the elections were accordingly declared on 11-3-2000, in which the petitioner herein was declared to have been duly elected as Mayor of the corporation with a majority of 6,590 votes.

( 4 ) THE first respondent herein filed election Petition No. 1 of 2000 challenging the election of the petitioner herein before the Election Tribunal. During the trial of the election Petition, 9 witnesses were examined on behalf of the first respondent- election petitioner and 2 witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner herein. The Returning Officer has also given evidence before the Election Tribunal. Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-11 were marked on behalf of the first respondent-election petitioner and ex. P-12 to Ex. P-21 were marked with consent of the parties. The trial was concluded. The Election Tribunal reopened the case at the instance of the petitioner herein and permitted her to adduce further evidence by examining more witnesses. The election Tribunal passed the impugned judgment on 26-7-2001, which is to the following effect: "since I feel that interest of justice requires that recounting of votes polled for the Mayor s post and counted at d. R. R. Indoor Stadium Counting centre and Old Council Hall Counting centre is necessary to have a supporting evidence for oral evidence led by the petitioner on these aspects. The evidence led by the parties regarding other counting centres will be appreciated only on result of the recounting at the above referred two counting centres. So, at this stage I feel it is not proper to pass orders for recounting of votes polled for Mayor s post and counted at other counting centres without knowing the result of recounting of votes polled for Mayor s post at the above referred two counting centres. Therefore, I hold that recounting of votes polled for Mayor s post of Zone no. VII, Division Nos. 31, 33, 39, 32 and 40 and Zone No. IX Division nos. 43,46,41, 44 and 45 which were counted at D. R. R. Indoor Stadium counting Centre, Bandar Road, vijayawada and the votes polled for mayor s post pertaining to Zone No. 1 division Nos. 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 which were counted at Old Council Hall counting Centre is necessary since the petitioner has proved by other evidence that irregularities and illegalities were committed on counting process at these counting centres. . In the result the following directions are issued to the Commissioner, municipal Corporation of Vijayawada and the Returning Officer-Respondent no. 8: (1) To call for the votes that were bundled at the time of counting of votes polled for Mayor s post of zone No. VII,division Nos. 31, 33, 39, 32 and 40 and Zone No. IX, division Nos. 43,46,41,44 and 45 at D. R. R. Indoor Stadium Counting centre and the vot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document