( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an election petition filed to set aside the election for 50th Division of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation.

( 2 ) THE essential averments may be stated: The appellant is 1st respondent in O P 1/1981 on the file of the Election Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam. The notification dated 3-8-1981 for elections to the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation was issued pursuant to Act 9 of 1979 constituting Visakhapatnam municipality as a Corporation. On the basis of the said notification the special Officier published the calender of election events on 4-8-1981 notifying that the nominations should be filed between 4-8-1981 to 10-8-1981 and the date for scrutiny of nominations was fixed on 11-8-1981 and the date of polling was scheduled on 27-8-1631. Kondamuri Swarnalatha (petitioner in the Election Petition ). Smt. Vijaya Kari (1st respondent in the election Petition) and Smt. Devaki pasupuleti (2nd respondent) filed nominations for 50th Division. The 1st respondent filed the nomination on 7-8 1981 stating her age as 19 years in accordance with the age entered in electoral roll. The Returning Officer returned the nomination on the ground that the candidate did not attain the age of 21 years on the notifying date as provided in Sec. 21 of the Hyderabad municipal Corporation Act and therefore she is not eligible to contest for the election. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed application dated 7-8-81 before the Electoral Registration Officer for correcting her age as 23 in the place of 19 and in support of this application produced the extract of entries in Matriculation examination certificate indicating her date of birth as 15-4-1958 and the marriage certificate issued by the Collector. On the perusal of these documents the Electoral Officer passed an order that her age should be corrected as sought for and the amended electoral voters list also was issued. Thereafter the 1st respondent filed nomination on 10-8-1981 mentioning her age and also enclosing the amended electoral roll: The Returning Officer received the same without any objection since the age mentioned in the amended electoral roll and the age mentioned in the nomination form satisfied the requirement of sec. 21 of the Act. The objections were filed by the petitioner and another stating that the actual date of birth of the 1st respondent is 15-4-62 and therefore her nomination should not have been accepted. After hearing both sides the Returning Officer overruled the objections and accepted the nomination on the strength of the documents filed before him and the amended electoral roll appended to the nomination form. The elections were conducted on 7-8 81 and in the elections the petitioner, 1st respondent and 2nd respondent contested the election. In the count conducted on 28-8-81 the 1 st respondent secured 1337 votes and the petitioner polled 1320 and the 2nd respondent secured 604 votes and the 1st respondent was declared duly elected councillor for 50th Division the petitioner filed the petition to set aside the election of the 1st respondent as her nomination is ab initio void as she was underaged on the date of filing the nomination. The amended electoral roll cannot be acted upon as she secured the amendment on the basis of false and fabricated Matriculation certificate. The acceptance cf the nomination by the Raturning Officer is illegal as he also relied upon false and fabricated documents As the nomination of 1st respondent is abinitin void her election is liable to be set aside and the petitioner should be declared as duly elected as she secured the maxium number of votes next to 1st respondent.

( 3 ) THIS petition is resisted by the 1st respondent on several grounds. It is pleaded that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go behind the electoral rolls or the amended electoral rolls and the Tribunal has to deal only with the incidents that cropped up from the date of nomination. Further, the petitio