1956 Supreme(AP) 125
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, K.SUBBA RAO, VISWANATHA SASTRY
NALLURI KOTAYYA. - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, KURNOOL AND TWO OTHERS. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-06-56
The Government has the power to set aside elections held for a reconstituted Panchayat if the preliminary steps preceding the election and required by law have not been taken by the appropriate authorities.
Headnote:
ELECTION DISPUTES - JURISDICTION - ELECTION COMMISSIONER - REVISIONAL POWER OF GOVERNMENT - MADRAS VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT, 1950 (MADRAS ACT X OF 1950), SECS. 3 (2), 128 - MADRAS VILLAGE PANCHAYATS RULES, 1950, RULES 1 (1), 11 (C).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was elected President of the Panchayat of Kodavalivaripalem. The Government of Andhra, acting under Sec. 128 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, declared the notification of the Regional Inspector of Municipalities and Local Boards, excluding Swarnapalem, a hamlet of Swarna, from the Swarna Panchayat and including it in the neighbouring Kodavalivaripalem Panchayat, to be illegal and also set aside the elections held for the reconstituted Kodavalivaripalem Panchayat as being null and void.
Finding of the Court:
The order of the Government was legal and proper. The Regional Inspector should first have notified the hamlet of Swarnapalem as a revenue village under Sec. 2 (22) of the Act before excluding it from the swarna Panchayat under Sec. 3 (2) (a) of the Act. He omitted to consult the Swarna Panchayat before excluding the hamlet of swarnapalem from its area. He also did not ascertain whether or not the population of the hamlet exceeded 500, for such inclusion would be inadmissible under Sec. 3 (1) (i) of the Act, if the population exceeded 500.
Issues: Whether the Government had the jurisdiction to set aside the elections held for the reconstituted Kodavalivaripalem Panchayat.
Ratio Decidendi: The Election Commissioner is a special tribunal created under the Act for hearing objections to the election of a member or president of a panchayat. The rules for the decision of election disputes contemplate an ex facie regular election where the preliminary steps preceding the election and required by law have been taken by the appropriate authorities. If an election is purported to be held for an area not legally constituted as a Panchayat the election itself would be void. Orders made by the Inspector or any person authorised by him with regard to these preliminary steps which have to precede an election are open to revision by the Government under Sec. 128 of the Act.
Final Decision: The application is dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) ORDER of the Court Was delivered by the Hon ble Mr. Justice Viswanatha sastiy. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Certiorari quashing an order, G. O. Ms. No. 719 (Local Administration) dated 29-7-1954, of the first respondent, the State of Andhra. The second respondent is the Regional Inspector of Municipalities and Local Boards, northern Range, Vijayawada. Purporting to act in exercise of the powers delegated to him by the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards under Sec. 127 (2) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), the second respondent issued a notification under sec. 3 (2) excluding Swarnapalem, a hamlet of Swarna from the Swarna panchayat and including it in the neighbouring Panchayat of Kodavali varipalem. The remaining extent of Swarna, without the hamlet, was constituted as the Swarna Panchayat. On the basis of the extended jurisdiction fixed by the notification of the second respondent, elections to the Panchayat of Kodavalivaripalem were held on 16-2-1954. On the same day the petitioner was also elected President of the Panchayat of Kodavalivaripalem. On 29-7-1954 the Government of Andhra acting under Sec. 128 of the Act made the order now sought to be quashed. In and by the order, the Government declared the notification of the second respondent excluding Swarnapalem, hamlet of Swarna, from the Swarna Panchayat and including it in the neighbouring Kodavalivaripalem Panchayat to be illegal and also set aside the elections held for the reconstituted Kodavalivaripalem Panchayat as being null and void. It is this order of the Government that is challenged by the petitioner as being illegal and without jurisdiction. It was argued that elections to the Panchayat having been held and the president of the Panchayat having also been elected, the only manner in which these elections could be set aside was by a petition presented under the Rules framed under the Act for the decision of election disputes. Under Rule 1 (1) no election held under the Act whether of a member or a president of a panchayat "shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in acccordance with these rules to an Election Commissioner. by any candidate or elector" against the returned candidate. The Election commissioner in most cases would be a judicial Officer and the proceedings for setting aside an election are directed to be inquired into as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Civil Procedure code to the trial. of suits. Under Rule 11 (c) the election of the returned candidate shall be void, if, in the opinion of the Election Commissioner, the result of the election has been materially affected " by any irregularity in respect of a nomination paper or by the improper reception or refusal of a nomination paper or vote or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. " it was urged that if the elections had been held without compliance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules, whatever be the nature of the provisions disobeyed or disregarded, still the only remedy available for setting aside the election of the returned candidates is by a petition to the Election Commissioner under Rule 1 (1) of the Rules. It was urged that the Government could not under the guise of exercising its revisional power under Sec. 128 of the act, set aside elections and that it had no jurisdiction to upset the verdict of the electorate in this indirect manner. It is true that the Election Commissioner is a special tribunal created under the Act for hearing objections to the election of a member or president of a panchayat and that he is empowered to declare the election of the returned candidate void if the result of the election has been materially affected by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. If the election of a returned c
Click Here to Read the rest of this document