The matter is coming up for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation.

2. The learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that inasmuch as there is contravention of Rule 30 of the Rules specified in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is perfectly maintainable.

3. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation had taken this Court through the Rules 148 and 149 of A.P. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2003, hereinafter in short referred to as the Rules for the purpose of convenience, and would maintain that in the light of the same, any violation of the Rule also can be complained of only by way of an Election Petition and hence the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

4. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in declaring the 4th respondent as elected for the post of President of Poduru Water Users Association as high-handed and arbitration action, without jurisdiction, contrary to Rule 30 of A.P. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (Andhra Pradesh Act 11 of 1997) and pass such other suitable orders.

5. It is stated that the petitioner is a farmer belonging to Poduru village in West Godavari District. It is also stated that on 9.1.2008 the election for President and Vice President posts of Poduru Water Users Association was conducted. For President's post the petitioner and another by name Korupalli Pulla Rao (R4) contested the election, out of 12 members of electoral body, six members voted in favour of the petitioner and the other six members to K.Pulla Rao and thereby due to equality of votes, the process of was stopped for some time. As the same was stalemate, the petitioner and other members lect the premises and after that the Election Officer declared the 4th respondent as elected by Head and toss system, which is contrary to the Rules prescribed under Rule 30 of A.P. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (Andhra Pradesh Act 11 of 1997) and as such liable to be set aside. It is also stated that as per Rule 30 of the Rules if stalemate arises due to equality of votes, the Election Officer shall forthwith decide among those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot falls had received the additional vote. The note under Rule 30 clearly lays the procedure for drawing lots.

30. Equality of votes

If, after the counting of the votes is completed, an equality of votes is found to exist among any of the candidates and the addition of one vote will lead to any of those candidates being declared elected, the Election Officer shall forthwith decide among those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot falls had received the additional vote.

It is also further stated that the Presiding Election Officer without obtaining the permission of the petitioner and without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules in spite of the objections made by the petitioner and other members and protest, laid Head and Toss and declared Kouripalli Pulla Rao (R4) was elected for the post of President of Poduru Water Users Association. The petitioner also gave objection in writing to the Presiding Officer and also gave complaint to the Poduru Mandal Tahsildar on the same day of election, which was not even considered by the E.P. It is also averred that the action of the 3rd respondent in declaring the 4th respondent as elected though he got only 6 votes is unjust and nothing but showing favour to the unofficial respondent without following the Rules prescribed under the Act and as such the election of the 4th respondent is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice as the same is contrary to Rule 30 of A.