Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.KUMARAYYA
N.V.L.Narasimha Rao - Appellant
Versus
Kotha Raghuramayya - Respondent
Decided On : 08-07-67
ELECTION LAW - Non-compliance with Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act - Dismissal of Election Petition - Allegations of corrupt practices against a candidate who is not made a party respondent - Impleading the candidate as a party-respondent - Maintainability of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a candidate in the Guntur Parliamentary constituency election, filed an election petition challenging the election of the 1st respondent, alleging various corrupt practices by him and his agents. The petitioner also alleged that one Gullapalli Venkata Punnaiah Sastri, who was a duly nominated candidate but withdrew his candidature, was induced by the 1st respondent to stand as a candidate and withdraw his candidature in consideration of a bribe. Punnaiah Sastri was not made a party respondent to the election petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allegations of corrupt practices against Punnaiah Sastri in the election petition were sufficient to bring him within the definition of a "candidate" under Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act, and that he was therefore a necessary party to the petition under Section 82(b). The court further held that the petitioner's failure to implead Punnaiah Sastri as a party respondent was a fatal defect that could not be cured by amendment, and that the petition was therefore liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations of corrupt practices against Punnaiah Sastri in the election petition were sufficient to bring him within the definition of a "candidate" under Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act? 2. Whether Punnaiah Sastri was a necessary party to the election petition under Section 82(b) of the Act? 3. Whether the petitioner's failure to implead Punnaiah Sastri as a party respondent was a fatal defect that could be cured by amendment? 4. Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allegations of corrupt practices against Punnaiah Sastri in the election petition were sufficient to bring him within the definition of a "candidate" under Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act. The court reasoned that the allegations showed that Punnaiah Sastri had committed corrupt practices, either as a candidate or as an agent of the 1st respondent, and that he was therefore a "candidate" within the meaning of the Act. 2. The court held that Punnaiah Sastri was a necessary party to the election petition under Section 82(b) of the Act. The court reasoned that Section 82(b) requires that any candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practices are made in the petition be joined as a respondent, and that Punnaiah Sastri fell within this category. 3. The court held that the petitioner's failure to implead Punnaiah Sastri as a party respondent was a fatal defect that could not be cured by amendment. The court reasoned that Section 86(1) of the Act mandates the dismissal of any election petition that does not comply with the provisions of Section 82(b), and that the petitioner's failure to implead Punnaiah Sastri was a clear violation of this provision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the 1st respondent's application to dismiss the election petition, disallowed the petitioner's application to implead Punnaiah Sastri as a party respondent, and dismissed the election petition in limine. The petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of all three respondents.
( 1 ) THIS is yet another case where the Election Petition has to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the people Act. This time it is a case of non-compliance with the requirement of Section 82 (b) of the Representation of the people Act. The facts bearing on the question are few and may be shortly stated.
( 2 ) IN the recent general elections for Guntur Parliamentary constituency held on 21/02/1967, six persons were duly nominated as candidates for election. Of these only four, including the petitioner Shri N. V. L. Narasimha Rao and the 1st respondent, Shri Kotha Raghuramayya seem to have contested for the seat. Sri Gullapalli Venkata Punnaiah Sastri who was also a duly nominated candidate did not choose to contest. He withdrew his candidature within the prescribed period. Eventually as a result of poll the 1st respondent was returned from the constituency. His election has now been called in question by the petitioner by means of Election Petition No. 11 of 1967. The grounds on which it is challenged are many. Commission of various corrupt practices by himself, through his agents and other persons have been alleged in the petition. I need not refer to all of them for, at this stage, I am concerned only with the allegations contained in the petition in relation to Gullapalli Venkata Punnaiah Sastri, who is not a party to this proceeding.
( 3 ) AT page 8 of the Annexure to the petition the petitioner in this behalf stated thus:-"the first respondent with a view to split the votes among the Brahmins in Guntur Town induced Punnaiah Sastry to stand for this Parliamentary seat, apprehending that all the Brahmins would solidly vote for the petitioner. He was given Rs. 500. 00 by the first respondent for his deposit. Sri Punnaiah Sastry accepted the offer and filed his nomination. Two days after the nominations were filed, first respondent spent about Rs. 300. 00 and arranged a tea party in Brodipet and invited the voters of that locality. This function of treating some voters expressed their displeasure at this strategy of the first respondent (sic ). Thereupon apprehending some violent reaction, the first respondent induced Punnaiah Sastry to withdraw from the contest offering him a reward of Rs. 500. 00 which he gave him towards his deposit. "
( 4 ) AGAIN in his amendment petition which was filed after the issues were framed, he stated thus : -"an amount of Rs. 1116. 00 and Rs 600/- and Rs. 500. 00 given on different dates to G. V. Punnaiah Sastry by the first respondent were intended to induce him to stand as candidate and withdraw his candidature subsequently for his own purposes. The first respondent used him as well as his agent for procuring votes for his election. First respondent is guilty of corrupt practice under S. 123 (1) (A) (a) of the R. P. Act. "then in para 4 of the Annexure to the petition, he stated thus: -"the first respondent apprehending that his application will be thrown out by the Selection Committee approached Shri G. Punnaiah Sastri, the President of Guntur Town Congress Committee, to recommend him to the said Selection Committee and canvass support for his candidature in consideration whereof he promised a bribe of Rs. 1,116. 00. The said Punnaiah Sastri without hastening to act on the mere promise waited till the first respondent issued a cheque for the said amount. He thereupon promised his vote and all kinds of support and sent a glorious report to the President of the A. P. C. starting that the 1st respondent alone had every chance of success and the chances of success of Smt. Parvati Devi are few and far between. The first respondent had given him again a cheque of Rs. 600. 00 and thereby not only procured his vote but also his services in canvassing for votes of others. "again at page 15 of the Annexure Part IV to the petition he stated thus:-"a car was placed at the disposal of Sri G. Punnaiah Sastry. The first respondent allotted 3 or 4 cars for ea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
