Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.S.NARAYANA
P.JAGADAMBA - Appellant
Versus
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION - Respondent
Decided On : 07/26/2006
WRIT PETITION 24748 Of 2001
Andhra pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 – Section 224 – Election - Declaring the proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A. P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondents to declare the result of the election held for the office of Ward Members and on the basis of the result sheet prepared by the 4th respondent and pass such other suitable orders respondent was impleaded as party in by order facts in brief are as hereunder: the elections to Gorrekal Gram Panchayat for the posts of Ward Members and Sarpanch were held Three candidates including the petitioner contested for the post of Sarpanch and there was straight contest for the post of 10 Ward Members polling was held peacefully from and the counting started counting was completed by it is also stated that the 4th respondent declared the results of the election for the post of Sarpanch and Ward Members and thereafter he was preparing the declaration forms. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that at that juncture the proposed party who came on record as the respondent one of the contestant for the post of sarpanch, who polled 34 votes less than the writ petitioner entered the counting hall along with his supporters and damaged the ballot papers and beat the election staff by scolding them stating that they were responsible for the defeat of the candidate –Held, learned senior counsel would contend that this is a case falling under the same and hence ordering re-poll is bad. Sub-rule (2) also may have to be read along with sub Rule (1)of Rule 37. It is specified that thereupon the election authority after taking all material circumstances into consideration either direct that the counting of votes shall be stopped, declare the poll at the polling station or place to be void, appoint a day, and fix the hours for taking a fresh poll at that polling station or place and notify the date so appointed and hours so fixed in such manner as he may deem fit. Rule 37 (2) (b) specifies that if satisfied that the result of a fresh poll at that polling station or place will not, in any way, affect the result of the Election, issue such directions to the Election Officer as may deem proper for the resumption and completion of the election and for further conduct and completion of the election in relation to which the votes have been counted. Sub rule (3) of Rule 37 specifies that the provisions of these Rules and any rules or orders made there under shall apply to any and every such fresh poll as they apply to the original poll. Rule 43 dealing with publication of results specifies that the Election Officer shall public on the notice Board in the office of the Gram concerned a notification signed by him, stating the name of the candidate duly elected. It may be appropriate to have a look at Rules 41, 42, and 45 also. In this context, it is no doubt a fortunate case where the unsuccessful candidate having known the result had resorted to certain unlawful acts or illegal acts by entering into the counting hall and disturbing the material – writ petition is disposed.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Subrahmanyam Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and the learned Assistant government Pleader for Panchayat Raj.
( 2 ) THE writ petitioner-P. Jagadamba filed the present writ petition praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No. 1548/sec-B2/2001-, dated 20. 11. 2001 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A. P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondents to declare the result of the election held on 17. 08. 2001 for the office of Ward Members and Sarpanch of Gorrekal Gram panchayat on the basis of the result sheet prepared by the 4th respondent and pass such other suitable orders.
( 3 ) THE respondent No. 5 was impleaded as party in w. P. M. P. No. 32832 of 2001 by order dated 08. 12. 2001.
( 4 ) THE facts in brief are as hereunder: the elections to Gorrekal Gram Panchayat for the posts of Ward Members and Sarpanch were held on 17. 08. 2001. Three candidates including the petitioner contested for the post of Sarpanch and there was straight contest for the post of 10 Ward Members. The polling was held peacefully from 7. 00 A. M up to 1. 00 P. M on 17. 08. 2001 and the counting started at 2. 00 P. M. The counting was completed by 4. 00 PM. It is also stated that the 4th respondent declared the results of the election for the post of Sarpanch and Ward Members and thereafter he was preparing the declaration forms. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that at that juncture the proposed party who came on record as the respondent No. 5, sri V. Hanumanthappa one of the contestant for the post of sarpanch, who polled 34 votes less than the writ petitioner entered the counting hall along with his supporters and damaged the ballot papers and beat the election staff by scolding them stating that they were responsible for the defeat of the candidate. The 4th respondent managed to come out and went to Alladurg Police Station and gave a report about the incident, which was registered as Crime no. 39 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 353, 332, 307 read with 149 IPC. The 4th respondent also submitted a report on 17. 08. 2001 itself to the Mandal Election Officer, Alladurg narrating the incident and also the votes secured by the candidates contested for the post of Sarpanch as well as the ward Members. It is mentioned in the said report that the writ petitioner got 886 votes and her nearest rival v. Hanumappa -respondent No. 5 secured 852 votes and the third candidate got 11 votes and 38 votes were rejected as invalid. The first respondent in the writ petition on the basis of the report of the second respondent requested the second respondent to get the matter inquired into in detail and submit a report, as the material available was not adequate for taking a decision in the matter. The second respondent appointed the third respondent to enquire into the matter in detail by examining the candidates and others. The second respondent after obtaining the report from the third respondent forwarded the same to the first respondent and the first respondent without properly appreciating various factors and without considering the statements recorded by the various persons by the enquiry officer, set aside the election held on 17. 08. 2001 and ordered for a fresh poll on 04. 12. 2001 which is illegal and arbitrary. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the 4th respondent herein entered the results of the counting on a paper and announced the results, except issuing declaration forms. On the basis of the entries made by him! in the paper he gave all the details pertaining to the votes secured by each candidate including the number of invalid votes in the report submitted to the Mandal Election officer on 17. 08. 2001 itself. The said report is available with the Officers and on the basis of the declaration forms can be issued. The reasoning of the first respondent that the rough result shee
SupremeToday
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
