(Per B. Chandra Kumar, J.)

This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order, dated 23-03-2009 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3384 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the order, dated 17-02-2009 in E.O.P.No.7 of 2006 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal under the A.P. Panchayatiraj Act, 1994, Yelamanchili (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), was confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Appellant herein respondents 2 to 7 contested in the election for the post of Sarpanch (President) of Gram Panchayat, Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam District held on 02-08-2006. The Appellant herein has secured an majority of 106 votes and thus the respondent 2 to 7 were unsuccessful. No written objection were filed demanding recounting of votes. The results were declared and the appellant was declared as winning candidate. The second respondent herein filed Election O.P.No.7 of 2006 before the Tribunal praying for a decree and Judgment in his favour and against the Appellant for recounting of the votes and for declaration that the action of the Election Officer in declaring that the Appellant has won the election to the post of Sarpanch of the village as illegal and consequently to declare him as duly elected candidate to the said post and for costs.

3. The allegations of the second respondent in the election petition were summed up by the Tribunal at para-23 of its order as under:

(1) The counting process was not commenced till 4.00 p.m. even though the schedule time is 2.00 p.m. on 2.8.2006.

(2) The counting staff made several interruptions in the process of counting.

(3) The counting staff was clearly won over by the 1" respondent, his men and the local M.L.A. of Payakaraopeta Assembly Constituency and the said M.L.A surprisingly made sudden and surprising visit at the scene of counting at 3.00 a.m. on 3.8.2006 and pressurized the election authority to make declaration of the election of R.1 to the office of Sarpanch of the said Panchayat by playing dominating role even by crossing the fence at the counting limits.

(4) At about 9.00 pm on 2.8.2006 the counting personnel irresponsibly staged a dharna and unduly abstained from discharging their duties for their demand of additional D.A. and night meals etc .,

(5) The counting staff leisurely restarted the counting from 12 mid night 265 during which period, 25 ballot bundles of the President election left opened and unattended and uncovered and despite the protest of the election petitioner on this point, the counting went on from 12 mid night to 3.00 a.m. on 3.8.2006.

(6) As a matter of fact, the election petitioner is entitled for six counting tables. Initially though six tables were there upto 4.00 p.m. on 2.8.2006, but due to influence of the local M.L.A. (Telugu Desam Party MLA), the election authority allowed him to field only four counting agents.

(7) The counting personnel at table-1 and table-4 started pretending that they are over powered by their fatigue and drowsiness and under the cover of the same started doing many mistakes in placing his valid vote in the trays of other candidates.

(8) Added to his on the day of counting, there was a storm with moderate to heavy rain with heavy gales and there was power failure three times for more than 15 to 20 minutes at each time and when the agents of the election petitioner pointed the mistakes, the agents of R.1 overpowered them. There is no alternative lighting arrangements during power failure.

(9) The agents of the election petitioner informed him that in his vote's bundle they placed the vote of R.1 on the outer covering ballot to make show that the bundle does belongs to R.1 and put such bundles in R.1 's tray and when his agents raised objections, they pretended tracing and traced only one bundle as against their bundles that are so mixed and corrected that mistake and from that bundle they separated the vote of R.1 and placed it in its right tr