Civil Revision Petition No.5555 of 2007 Decided On : 11-07-2008 Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel representing revision petitioner and Sri C. Subba Rao, representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel representing first respondent.

2. The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the first respondent in I.A.No.1552 of 2007 in Election O.P.No.7 of 2006 on the file of Election Tribunal (in respect of Gram Panchayat) cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

3. The said application was filed praying for the relief of re-counting of votes. The Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Tribunal" for the purpose of convenience) made a common order in I.A.No.1550 of 2007, I.A.No.1551 of 2007, I.A.No.1552 of 2007 and I.A.No.1553 of 2007 in E.O.P.No.7 of 2006. The Tribunal, after recording reasons, allowed I.A.No.1550 of 2007 praying for reopening of the matter and also I.A.No.1552 of 2007 praying for re-counting of votes. However, the application praying for amendment of the Election O.P. aforesaid by adding respondents 7 to 9 (I.A.No.1551 of 2007) as well as praying for exhibiting Ex.A-4, Video disk, (I.A.No.1553 of 2007) were dismissed. Aggrieved by the order granting relief of re-counting of votes in I.A.No.1552 of 2007, the present civil revision petition had been preferred.

4. Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and would maintain that the Tribunal ought to have arrived at a conclusion that the application is a misconceived remedy. The learned counsel also would maintain that the first respondent did not raise any objections at the time of counting and also after declaration of results. The learned counsel also made elaborate submissions in the light of the evidence available on record and would maintain that even on merits it is not a case where the re-counting could have been ordered on an interlocutory application, that too, when such relief had been prayed for even in the Election O.P. itself. In stead, the Tribunal could have disposed of the Election O.P. as such in stead of reopening the matter and also directing the re-counting of votes. The counsel while further elaborating his submissions had taken this Court through Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections of Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Members of Mandal Parishad and Members of Zilla Parishad) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Rules" for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that in the light of the said Rule 35, the order impugned in this civil revision petition cannot be sustained. Further, the learned counsel would maintain that no concerned officer had been impleaded and the application moved for such amendment had been dismissed. The counsel also further would maintain that the Election Officer was not examined and in view of non-raising of objections at the appropriate time, such relief cannot be granted on the strength of an interlocutory application. Even otherwise, the allegations are vague and in the absence of specific clear allegations in this regard, allowing an application by making such an order cannot be sustained. The learned counsel relied on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.

5. On the contrary, Sri C. Subba Rao, learned counsel representing the first respondent would maintain that the civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and there is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal. The learned counsel also would maintain that the mere fact that Rule 35 had not been complied with would not come in the way of making appropriate order in Election O.P. The learned counsel also pointed out to the scope and ambit of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India and would maintain that th