SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) K. RAMANJANEYULU (the petitioner herein) contested for the post of Sarpanch of Kotanka Gram Panchayat. That post is reserved for B. C. Category. The election for the said post was scheduled to be conducted on 24-6-1995. At the stage of counting, it appears, (1285) votes have been polled, out of which the petitioner secured (623) votes and C. Subrahmanyam (the fourth respondent herein), the other contestant, secured (599) votes. Form No. 17 was thus filled in but the result of the counting was not announced. It is stated that a representation was filed before the second respondent by some villagers belongingto Scheduled Caste on26-6-1995. The second respondent direcled the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made in the said representation. Accordingly, on the next day i. e, 27-6-1995 the Mandal Revenue Officer conducted an enquiry and opined that no case for repelling was made out. It is alleged that without waiting for the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the second respondent sent fax message to the third respondent on 28-6-1995 requesting him to order repoll for the entire Gram Panchayat on the ground that the first respondent did not use indelible ink while issuing ballot papers. On 29-6-1995 the third respondent ordered repoll of the said Gram Panchayat which comprises of 10 wards. It appears the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer was received by the second respondent on 28-6-1995. He requested the third respondent to cancel the repoll already ordered and accordingly repoll was cancelled on 3-7-1995. On 4-7-1995 the third respondent again directed to conduct repoll on 9-7-1995. The petitioner questions the said order of the third respondent dated July 9 (sic. 4), 1995 directing repoll in this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an additional affidavit stating that the power to order repoll is conferred on the third respondent under Section 231 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act,1994 (for short the Act of 1994) and that can be done only when there had been booth capturing at one polling station affecting the result of the election or when the result of the poll cannot be ascertained. Such an action can only be taken on receipt of the report of the Returning Officer. In this case the Mandal Revenue Officer did not make a mention of rigging at Kotanka village and he did not even suggest for repelling. No case of booth capturing was reported at any particular polling station or more polling stations than one affecting the result of the poll. Even form No. 17 was filled in. Therefore the result of the election had become final. Further the third respondent had not recorded the finding that the results of the election are affected either in one polling station or more polling stations than one. In case it is established mat booth capturing has taken place in a polling station or in large number of polling stations affecting the result of the election, the only action that can be taken is to countermand the election but not to order repoll.

( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit, the third respondent inter alia submits that pursuant to the election notification, the elections were conducted in four phases. On 28-6-1995 the second respondent sent fax message stating that the Stage-II Election Officer did not use indelible ink while issuing ballot papers to voters of Kotanka village of Garladinne Mandal. By putting indelible ink mark on the finger of the voter, rigging and double voting could be prevented and this lapse is a serious lapse. Therefore repolling may be ordered. On receipt of that message, the third respondent issued orders on 29-6-1995 for fresh poll for all the offices of Kotanka Gram Panchayat to be held on 3-7-1995 between 7 A. M. and 1 P. M. While so, the second respondent again sent another message dated 28-6-1995 requesting the State Election Commissioner to cancel the earlier order of repoll for all the offices in Kotanka Grampanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document