These two writ petitions are directed against the order, dated 03.11.2008, passed by the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P.No.20 of 2006.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No.25611 of 2008 is the 1st respondent in W.P.No.27561 of 2008, and vice versa. Other respondents are common. Hence, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P.No.25611 of 2008.

3. Election to the Office of Sarpanch of Yellareddy Gram Panchayat, Narketpally Mandai, Nalgonda District was held on 02.08.2006. The petitioner and the 151 respondent contested in the election, and the former was declared elected by a margin of 30 votes. The 1st respondent filed the O.P., for the relief of setting aside the election of the petitioner, and consequently, to declare him as having been elected.

Through its order, dated 03.11.2008, the Tribunal had set aside the election of the petitioner. However, it refused to declare that the 1st respondent is elected. Instead, it directed that election be held for the Office of Sarpanch. While the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, in setting aside his election, the 1st respondent is dissatisfied with the refusal of declaration, in his favour.

4. For all practical purposes, the pleadings in one writ petition are the statements in opposition, in the other.

5. Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal committed a serious irregularity in directing recounting of votes, though, neither any evidence was adduced for that purpose, nor any finding was recorded to the effect that the recounting is necessary. He contends that several steps were taken by the Tribunal, which had the effect of violating the secrecy of ballot, and even if the findings of the Tribunal are taken on their face value, it cannot be said that the election of the petitioner is, in any way, vitiated. He further contends that every illegality, or irregularity in an election, per se, does not vitiate the election, and it must be clearly demonstrated before the Tribunal, that the election of an elected Candidate was illegal, before it is set aside.

6. Sri T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the Tribunal directing recounting of votes, and that the order in the O.P., was passed, after taking the oral and documentary evidence into account. He contends that it was demonstrated before the Tribunal, that several irregularities have taken place, and that, the Tribunal had correctly set aside the election of the petitioner. He further contends that the evidence on record was sufficient to demonstrate that, if the wrongfully polled votes are excluded from consideration, the 151 respondent gets majority, and thereby, entitled to be declared as elected.

7. The petitioner won the election from the Office of Sarpanch, with a margin of 30 votes. The 1st respondent challenged the election of the petitioner by pleading five grounds, viz.,

(a) that 15 votes mentioned in Annexure-I were included in the voter's list;

(b) that irregularities have taken place in the counting;

(c) that the petitioner had resorted to rigging during the election;

(d) that instances of double voting as mentioned in annexure-II exist; and

(e) that the votes of as many as 15 persons, mentioned in annexure-III, who are on election duty, were polled by impersonation.

8. To establish the grounds pleaded by him, the 151 respondent examined P .Ws.1 to 4, and filed Exs.P-1 to P-8. On behalf of the petitioner, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, and no documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal has taken on record, Exs.C-1 to C-23, which are ballot papers with mark of "Stove" symbol, and certain documents in X-series, which are ballot papers, marked "Door" symbol.

9. The Tribunal framed two issues, viz.,

(i) "Whether the election of the petitioner (151 respondent herein) is materially affected due to corrupt practices, irregularities and illegal