S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition relates to the election of Sarpanch of Udathavari- palem Gram Panchayat held on 10-3-1988 and is filed for quashing the order of the Election Court (District Munsif), Gudur (the 1st respondent herein) in I. A. No. 80 of 1990 in O. P. No. 20 of 1988 dated 9-8-1990 allowing the said T. A. preferred by the 2nd respondent herein praying for the opening of "the packets of ballot papers polled by both the parties herein and the packets containing invalid votes in respect of them and recounting" etc.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in this Writ Petition was declared as elected as sarpanch at the said election. He secured 654 votes and the 2nd respondent herein, another contestant in the said election, secured 649 votes. The number of invalid votes is 45.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent herein filed the said O. P. No. 20 of 1988 before the 1st respondent praying inter alia for declaring the election of the petitioner herein as void and for further declaring that he was duly elected as sarpanch. The grounds raised by the 2nd respondent in the said O. P. for the declarations sought by him, to the extent relevant for the present Writ petition, are as follows : (I) (Ground (a) in the Election Petition) : the Election Officer wrongly held about 12 votes cast in favour of the 2nd respondent herein as invalid on flimsy and untaneble grounds ; (II) (Ground (e) in the Election Petition ). At the time of polling, 2 minors bearing Sl. Nos. 1505 and 1519 were allowed to exercise their franchise despite objection as they were aged only less than 18 years ; and (III) (Ground (g) in the Election Petition) : the Election Officer allowed 6 persons to vote twice despite protest by the 2nd respondent s agent and they are Sl. Nos. 67 and 1560, 68 and 1559, 99 and 1330, 100 and 1329, 380 and 396 and 754 and 1560. In the counter filed by the petitioner herein in the said O. P. it is stated in respect of ground No. (i) that it is absolutely false that the election officer wrongly held about 12 votes cast in favour of the 2nd respondent herein as invalid on flimsy and untenable grounds ; and in respect of ground No. (ii) it is stated that it is absolutely false that voters bearing Sl. Nos. 1505 and 1519 were minors and it is further stated that no such objection was raised at the time of preparation and publication of the voters list which had become final or at the time of the election ; and as regards ground No. (iii) it is stated that though the names of the voters were found in two places in the voters list, they exercised franchise only at one place and that therefore it was incorrect to say that 6 persons were allowed to vote twice and that the name of the voter in Sl. No. 754 is repeated in Sl. No. 1526 and not in sl. No. 1560 as stated in the election petition.

( 4 ) AFTER the examination of witnesses on both sides and the marking of the documents was completed and the Election Petition was ready for argument, the 2nd respondent herein filed the said I. A. No. 80 of 1990 on 13-6-1990. In the affidavit of the 2nd respondent herein in support of the said I. A. it is stated as follows :"i state that the entire evidence in. the case is over and the ballot papers polled by both parties were also marked in the above matter in the light of the evidence on record and as I was declared to have lost the election by a margin of 5 votes, I state that it is just and necessary that the ballot papers polled by us, both valid and invalid, have to be recounted to arrive at a just decision in the case as to who should be the successful candidate. "that is the sole basis put forward by the 2nd respondent for the recount prayed for by him. The petitioner herein in his counter contends that the 2nd respondent cannot seek recount of the votes as the allegations in his election petition and evidence are vague and that he cannot be permitted to fish out information by seeking recount of ballot papers as it amounts to violation of secrecy of ballot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document