Back
1996 Supreme(AP) 395
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU
K.Prem Singh Rathore - Appellant
Versus
Returning Officer, Maharajgunj Assembly Constituency, Hyd. - Respondent
Decided On : 05-07-96
Headnote:
The petitioner challenged the election of the second respondent on grounds of illegalities, corrupt practices, and irregularities in the conduct of the election and counting of votes. The court analyzed the allegations in light of the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951, emphasizing the need for concise statements of material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices. The court found that the election petition lacked the necessary particulars and details required under Section 83 of the Act, rendering the allegations vague and indefinite. The court also rejected the petitioner's arguments that the full particulars were not disclosed in the election petition and that the evidence adduced should be considered despite the lack of particulars. The court held that the allegations of corrupt practices, even if true, could not be attributed to the second respondent as there was no allegation of his consent or involvement. The court further held that the allegations of irregularities and illegalities in the election process and counting of votes were not substantiated by evidence. The court dismissed the petition with costs, finding that the petitioner failed to establish any of the allegations raised.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a candidate in the Andhra Pradesh legislative Assembly election, challenged the election of the second respondent on grounds of illegalities, corrupt practices, and irregularities in the conduct of the election and counting of votes. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent misused his position as an arbitrator, bribed voters, and engaged in booth capturing and rigging. The petitioner also alleged that the first respondent, the Returning Officer, exhibited mala fide intention and helped the ruling party. The second respondent denied the allegations and claimed that the election was conducted in a free and fair manner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition lacked the necessary particulars and details required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, rendering the allegations vague and indefinite. The court also held that the allegations of corrupt practices, even if true, could not be attributed to the second respondent as there was no allegation of his consent or involvement. The court further held that the allegations of irregularities and illegalities in the election process and counting of votes were not substantiated by evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the election of the second respondent was vitiated by corrupt practices? 2. Whether the respondents, including respondent No. 2, are guilty of the commission of corrupt practices of booth capturing, rigging, impersonation, bribery, undue influence, using of manpower, money power, arrack, muscle power, threatening the electors, inciting the electorate on the grounds of sentiments based on religion, race, caste, and creed as alleged in the election petition? 3. Whether the illegalities and malafide acts committed in the process of election, conduct of election, and process of the counting of votes have materially affected the result of the election and have prejudicially affected the petitioner? 4. Whether the first respondent is guilty of dereliction of duty and acted malafide in reception and scrutiny of nomination papers and the same has materially and prejudicially affected rendering the result of election illegal? 5. Whether the election officer- respondent No. 1 acted mala fide as alleged in paragraphs 9,10,14,24,25, and 27 of the election petition? 6. Whether the fourth respondent misused his official position as M.L.A. causing inclusion of several hundreds of non-existing persons and getting votes polled by rigging and false personation, thereby materially affecting the result of the election? 7. Whether the first respondent failed in conducting free and fair election under adequate security measures actuated by mala fides to help the ruling congress candidate and r-4 as against T.D.P. and as a result the second respondent took advantage to adopt to rigging of votes for false personation and booth capturing and rigging in collusion with the election officers? 8. Whether the votes unsigned by polling officer have been profusely got voted by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 impersonating the voters and thereby the election is materially affected rendering the same invalid and illegal? 9. Whether the arrangements made and the procedure adopted at counting of votes were so inadequate that the counting was made a mere farce and is vitiated by illegalities justifying an order for recounting? 10. Whether the election of the second respondent is liable to be set aside? 11. Whether the petitioner had secured the majority of the valid votes and is entitled to declared as elected? 12. To what relief?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951, emphasizing the need for concise statements of material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices. The court also referred to the settled principle that an election petition is a statutory proceeding governed by the provisions of the Act and that the court possesses no common law power. The court held that the allegations in the election petition were vague and indefinite, lacking the necessary particulars required under Section 83 of the Act. The court further held that the allegations of corrupt practices could not be attributed to the second respondent in the absence of any allegation of his consent or involvement. The court also found that the allegations of irregularities and illegalities in the election process and counting of votes were not substantiated by evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition with costs, finding that the petitioner failed to establish any of the allegations raised.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has contested for a seat to the Andhra Pradesh legislative Assembly from 214 Legislative assembly Constituency (Maharajgunj constituency, Hyderabad City) as a candidate of Telugu Desam Party (hereinafter referred to as T. D. P) in the elections held on 1-12-1994. The second respondent was declared as the returned candidate having contested on behalf of Bharatiya janatha Party (hereinafter referred to as b. J. P ). The third respondent contested as a candidate on behalf of Indian National congress while the fourth respondent who was sitting M. L. A. of the Congress-I party filed his nomination as an independent candidate and contested the election. All the other respondents are independent candidates except Respondent No. 1, the returning Officer.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the election of the second respondent was vitiated and is liable to be set aside on grounds of illegalities, corrupt practices in the conduct of election and also in view of irregularities committed in the process of counting of votes including improper rejection of valid votes polled in favour of the petitioner as well as improper reception of invalid votes in favour of the 2nd respondent and respondents 3 and 4 which have materially affected there sult of election to the prejudice of the petitioner.
( 3 ) THE 1st respondent and the entire polling staff exhibited from the beginning hostile attitude tot. D. P. candidate and bent up on helping the Congress-I candidate in the election. The Non-Gazetted Officers were also hostile to T. D. P. and they worked for the success of the Congress party and their hostility was on account of reduction of the age of retirement of N. G. Os from 58 to 55 years when N. T. Rama Rao was the Chief minister on behalf of T. D. P. The polling staff actively helped the Congress-I party candidate in booth capturing and rigging of votes by impersonation. They even refused to receive reports from the polling agents of the petitioner. They have manipulated form-16 account and presiding officer s diariesin such a way as if the polling went on normally. The notice of scrutiny of the nominations was given to the petitioner on 7-11-1994 calling upon him to appear before the subordinate Returning Officer at 9. 00 a. m. on 9-11-1994 for scrutiny whereas for other candidates the Returning Officer has given notice to appear on that day at 11. 00a. m. Consequently the petitioner was denied an opportunity to raise objections for the nomination of respondents 2,3 and 4 and some others.
( 4 ) THE 2nd respondent started his election campaign from Vithoba temple at Gowliguda. His election office was also set up in the said temple. He has misused his position as an arbitrator over a dispute between the temple and the tenants by securing the assistance of both temple authorities and the tenants to secure votes on the basis of rousing religious sentiment. He made use of the national burning issue of Ram Janam Bhoomi and babri Masjid at Ayodhya for his election campaign. He recalled the memories of people about the Kar Seva at Ayodhya and demolition of Babri Masjid At Jumerat bazar he held his meeting at Uppalamma temple premises. The accessories of the temple including mike were made use of for his election campaign. He collected donations from the electorate and the business community to meet his election expenditure. He made election promise on open platform in one of his meetings that he would renovate and reconstruct the dilapidated temple at Chaknawadi area if he were to be returned by the electorate. The petitioner reported the same to the Chief election Commissioner and others by his letter dated28-l 1-1994.
( 5 ) PHEELKHANA, Bedar Wadi and mangalhat areas form part of Maharajgunj constituency and majortity of voters are muslims from those areas. There was good understanding between the leader oft. D. P. Sri. N. T. Rama Rao and muslims and they were supporting T. D. P. having fallen out from Con
