S. S. MOHD. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions raise common questions of law as to where does the remedy of the Petitioner-a defeated candidate in the elections to the gram Panchayats, lie. To appreciate this question, we shall refer to the facts in W. P. No. 24439 of 1995. The petitioner and the first Respondent contested for the post of Sarpanch of Dasaigudem Gram panchayat, Suryapet, Nalgonda district. Election to the said post was held on 27th june, 1995. Out of the polled votes, the petitioner secured 390 votes and the first respondent secured 388 votes. The Petitioner, therefore, was having majority of two votes. The first Respondent made a request for recounting of votes which was granted. On recounting the votes, the Petitioner secured 389 votes whereas the first Respondent secured 388 votes. It appears Form No. 17 was filled and signed. However, the results were not declared due to the pendency of the batch of writ Petition in this Court as well as in the supreme Court. After a direction was issued by the Supreme Court to announce the results, the second recounting is alleged to have been undertaken on 22nd October, 1955, the result of which was that the first Respondent secured majority over the Petitioner. It is the result of that recounting that is assailed in this Writ petition. Sri Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that under Rule 35 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (in short the Act ) {sic AP. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election Rules)} the second recounting is not permissible. Therefore, the result of the election pursuant to the second recounting, in violation of Rule 35 (5) of the Act, (Sic Rules) has to be declared as without any jurisdiction.

( 2 ) SRI M. Chandrasekhar, appearing for the Petitioner in W. P. No. 25101 of 1995, has also contended that the second recounting is in violation of Rule 35 (5) of the Act (Sic Rules) [and therefore it should be treated as without any jurisdiction. As such, this Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution and declare the results as illegal.

( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents on the other hand contends that after the declaration of the results, the only remedy the Petitioners have, is to approach the Tribunal under the A. P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995, (for short the tribunal Rules ), and therefore they cannot seek any remedy under Article 226 of the constitution having regard to the provisions of article 243 (0) of the Constitution. It would be useful to read here Rule 35 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act (Conduct of elections) Rules:"35. Recount of Votes: (I) After such announcement has been made under sub-rule (7) of Rule 34, a candidate or, in his absence, his election agentor any of his counting agents may apply in writing to the election Officer for the recounting the votes either wholly or in part stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. (2) On such an application being made the election Officer shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject is wholly if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. (3) Every decision of the Election Officer under Sub-rule (2) shall be in writing and contain the reason therefor; (4) If the Election Officer decide under sub-rule (2) to allowa recount of the votes either wholly or in part he shall - (A)ARRANGE for the recounting in accordance with Rules 32 and 34. (b) amend the result sheet in Form 17 to the extent necessary after such recount; and (c) amend the amendments so made by him. (5.) After the total number of votes polled by each candidate has been announced under Sub-rule (4), the Election Officer shall complete and sign the Result Sheet in form 17 and no application for a further or second recount shall be entertained thereafter. "

( 4 ) THE contention is that there has been violation of Sub-ru

Click Here to Read the rest of this document