C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed questioning the election of the 1st respondent to Satyavedu (Scheduled Caste) Constituency of A. P. Legislative Assembly that took place on 5-9-1999, with a prayer to direct the Election Commission to conduct fresh election to that Constituency.

( 2 ) THE case, in brief, of the petitioner is that she belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and during the A. P. General Assembly Elections scheduled to be held on 5-9-1999 to 136-Satyavedu (Scheduled Caste) Constituency, she filed her nomination on 18-8-1999 along with b Form issued by Anna Telugu Desam Party, after fulfilling all the formalities. She also took oath on 18-8-1999, as required, as S. Ratnamma, wife of Chand Basha, enclosing the Marriage Certificate issued by Nayab-e-Government Kazi, Srikalahasti, a Caste Certificate etc. which all show her alias as Ratnamma, her maiden name. Though after her marriage with Chand Basha, she changed the name as Raheema Bee, she continues to belong to Mala Caste, which is a Scheduled Caste community. During scrutiny of nominations on 19-8-1999 (wrongly typed in the petition as 19-9-1999), even without providing her an opportunity to show that she is the Ratnamma alias Raheema Bee, the Returning Officer rejected her nomination on the ground that her name Ratnamma is not shown in the Electoral roll, though the name raheema Bee is found therein and though nobody disputed her identity as Ratnamma alias Raheema Bee. Since the 1st respondent was declared elected in the election that took place on 5-9-1999 and since her nomination was improperly rejected, the election of the 1st respondent to 136-Satyavedu (Scheduled Caste) Assembly Constituency may be declared as void.

( 3 ) 1st Respondent filed his written statement admitting that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and that she filed her nomination on 18-8-1999 along with b Form issued by Anna Telugu Desam Party with her name as Ratnamma and that the receipt issued by the Returning Officer also shows that S. Ratnamma, wife of Chand Basha filed the nomination, and contending that since the name of Ratnamma is not found in the electoral roll, the nomination of the petitioner is rightly rejected by the Returning Officer.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 2 to 8 remained ex parte.

( 5 ) 9th Respondent filed his written statement contending that since the name of S. Ratnamma is not found in the electoral roll, the nomination of the petitioner was rejected after giving an opportunity to her.

( 6 ) THE Election Commission, which was shown as 10th respondent in the petition was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties as per the orders of this Court dated 4-4-2000.

( 7 ) BASING on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:- 1. Whether the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner was not proper as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the election of 1st respondent is liable to be set aside because of the improper rejection of the nomination of the petitioner? 3. To what relief?

( 8 ) IN support of her case, petitioner besides examining herself as P. W. 1, examined her husband as P. W. 2 and her father as P. W. 3 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-8. 1st Respondent did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. On behalf of 9th respondent, two witnesses were examined as R. Ws. 1 and 2, but no documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf. Evidence of R. W. 1 was eschewed because after being examined in chief in part, he did not come into the witness box again. So, evidence of R. W. 2 i. e. , the Election Deputy Collector, Chittoor, who was acting as the Returning Officer for 136-Satyavedu (Scheduled Caste) Assembly Constituency, alone is there on record for 9th respondent.

( 9 ) THE identity of the petitioner, or her being a member of the Scheduled Caste community, is not denied or disputed by the 1st respondent. The short point for consideration in the petition is whether the rejection of the nomination of the petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document