The dismissal of a writ petition in limine does not operate as res judicata and does not bar a subsequent election petition challenging the election of a candidate.

GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the judgment of our learned brother C. Kondaiah, J. , given in W. P. No. 3886 of 1970 on 9-12-1970 whereby the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Election Tribunal , Vijayawada made in O. P. No. 131 of 1969.

( 2 ) THE facts in outline are that a seat to the Municipal Council of Vijayawada fell vacant in Ward No. 33. A notification calling upon the Constituency to return the candidate was published on 25-3-1969. The last date for filing the nomination was fixed as 4-4-1969. The appellant and the 1st respondent filed their nomination papers on 4-4-1969.

( 3 ) ON 3-4-1969 the scrutiny of nomination papers took place. The 1st respondent raised an objection to the nomination paper filed by the appellant. His contention was that he was in arrears of profession tax due from a firm of which he happened to be a partner.

( 4 ) THE Returning Officer rejected the appellants nomination holding on the evidence of the Bill Collector and the Revenue Officer that the appellant was in arrears.

( 5 ) THE appellant, aggrieved by that order of the Returning Officer, preferred an appeal under Rule 11 (2) of the Election Rules to the Collector. The appeal, however was dismissed on 9-4-1969 confirming the order of the Returning Officer.

( 6 ) THEREUPON the appellant filed W. P. No. 1255 of 1969 in this Court. On 11-4-1969, a Division Bench consisting of Jaganmohan Reddy , C. J. and Sambasiva Rao, J. , dismissed the Writ Petition at the admission stage. The material portion of the said Judgment reads as follows : "we do not think that there is any case for admitting this Writ Petition. The Election Officer and Secretary and Special Officer, Vijayawada Municipality rejected the nomination on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of profession tax on the date of scrutiny, viz, 5-4-1969. It was held that the petitioner had paid arrears of Rs. 50. 00 to one Prasada Rao who gave it to Srinivasa Rao, Bill Collector on 5-4-1969 after his nomination had come up for scrutiny and that a receipt was obtained from him persuading him to antedate it to 31/03/1969. The amount is said to have been paid by Srinivasarao. Both these Bill Collectors gave a statement before the Election Officer that the amount was paid just then on 5-4-1969 and not as alleged on 31-3-1969. The Election Officer stated that the allegation that it was paid between 3-30 and 4-30, on 31-3-1969 also was not substantiated because his enquiries revealed that there was no Bill Collector in the Municipal Office on that day at that time. Against this order, an appeal was filed to the Collector. The Collector also scrutinized the record and stated that as per the Municipal records, the petitioner had not paid the tax by the time the Municipal records, the petitioner had not paid the tax by the time the Municipal records were verified by the Revenue Officer after the objection was filed by the Brahmenswararao (Respondent ). When the petitioners nomination was taken up by the Election Officer for scrutiny and that the statement of the two employees showed that they were in collusion with the petitioner and held that the amount was paid on 5-4-1969 and not on 31-3-1969. In our view both the Election Officer and the Collector on the statements before them could come to the conclusion to which they have reached and we do not think that there is any error of jurisdiction or of law or violation of any principles of natural justice. There was an allegation that the order of the Collector is mechanical and equally mala fide and was brought about by the political pressure of the Congress leaders in order to see that the petitioner who happens to be an important leader of the opposition is defeated and his rival congress candidate is declared without contest. But in the face of the material upon which the officers acted, we cannot say that prima facie case of bias is made out, nor are there any details given in the affid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document