Andhra Pradesh High Court
CHENNAKESAV REDDI,SARDAR ALI KHAN
Soma Venkatareddy - Appellant
Versus
Nakka Veladari Ramulu - Respondent
Decided On : 06/02/1984
ELECTION - RECOUNTING OF VOTES - PRINCIPLES - ELECTION TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - LETTERS PATENT APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Election petition was filed challenging the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch. The Election Tribunal ordered recounting of votes. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Election Tribunal. The single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Election Tribunal. The respondent filed a writ appeal challenging the judgment of the single Judge. The petitioner also filed a writ appeal challenging the maintainability of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court held that the Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to order recounting of votes. The Division Bench also held that the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable. The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the single Judge and allowed the writ appeal filed by the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to order recounting of votes? 2. Whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Election Tribunal has the power to order recounting of votes in order to do complete justice between the parties. 2. The Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable from a judgment of a single Judge of the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the single Judge and allowed the writ appeal filed by the respondent.
SARDAR ALI KHAN, J.:- Writ appeals Nos. 1061 and 1099 of 1983 has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7043 of 1983.
2. Writ appeal No. 1061 of 1983 has been filed by the respondent in W. P. No. 7043 of 1983 praying inter alia, that the judgment under appeal by virtue of which the writ petitioner was declared elected to the post of Sarpanch of Nampally Gram Panchayat in Nalgonda District be set aside. Writ Appeal number 1099 of 1983 has been filed by the Writ Petitioner himself on the ground that the writ petition should not have been allowed merely on the ground of invalidation of 11 ballot papers as such, and the learned single Judge should have taken into consideration all the other submissions made by the Writ Petitioner and allowed the appeal on all the other grounds urged in the Writ Petition. In both the writ appeals the subject matter of dispute is the same and common questions of fact and law arise which can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.
3. In order to appreciate the main point of controversy arising in this case, it would be in the fitness of things to refer briefly to the facts arising for the filing of the writ petition. The writ petitioner Nakka Veladri Ramulu was elected as Sarpanch of Nampally Gram Panchayat on 4-6-1981. He secured 604 votes as against the 582 votes secured by Sama Venkata Reddy, Respondent No. 1. The total electoral for this Gram Panchayat was 1757 as evidenced by the rolls of election. Out of these, 1501 voters exercised their votes on 4-6-1981. There were in all three contestants. The petitioner, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 who secured only 281 votes. After the declaration of the results of the election, the petitioner claims to have assumed charge of the office as Sarpanch and started functioning as such. However, the 1st respondent who had secured the next highest 582 votes filed an election petition questioning the validity of the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch. In the election petition numbered as O. P. No. 4 of 1981, it was alleged that the election of Nakka Veladri Ramulu as Sarpanch of the Nampally Gram Panchayat be set aside, and that the election petitioner be declared as elected. The allegations made in O. P. No. 4. 1981 briefly are that the Respondent No. 3 who is the Election Officer of the Nampally Gram Panchayat has declared some votes as spoiled votes even though there are clear and visible markings on the symbols. Furthermore, he has wrongly allotted some vas in favour of Nakka Veladri Ramulu contrary to the rules and Regulations in force. It is also alleged the scrutiny and recount of the ballot-papers is necessary in this case to do justice between the parties. In fact the election petitioner expressed his full confidence that he will get a majority of votes if the recount of the ballot papers is ordered. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioner, the allegations contained in the election petition are traversed and it was asserted that since the election petitioner had not filed any objection petition for recount before the Election Officer at the time of counting of votes, he cannot raise that question at this belated stage. It is also stated that it is false to suggest that there are visible markings on the symbols of the Election Petitioner which have been wrongly allotted to the Respondent No. 1.
4. It is on record to show that on 24-1-1983 Sri Ravi Chenchaiah, Advocate for the writ petitioner who is the respondent in the election petition, made an endorsement on I. A. No. 350 of 1982 in O. P. No. 4 of 1981 stating that he has no objection for recounting of votes. Hence I. A. No. 350 of 1982 was allowed and votes were recalculated in the presence of Advocates of both sides and also the parties on 28-1-1983 acrd were subsequently seated in the presence of the parties and their Advocates on the same date. After several adjournments the final recounting was taken up
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.