Elections to the Gram Panchayat of Gulivandada Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District were held on 02.08.2006. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 contested for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner was declared elected. The 1st respondent filed E.O.P.No.2 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, challenging the election of the petitioner. It was pleaded that the petitioner held the office of President of the Water Users Association (for short ‘the Association’) of Venkayyacheruvu of the Village and thereby, incurred disqualification under Section 18 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act (for short ‘the Act’). It was alleged that the Returning Officer, 5th respondent herein, rejected the nomination of the petitioner, whereas the Deputy District Election Authority i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and accordingly, the nomination was accepted. No other grounds were urged.

The petitioner opposed the E.O.P., by stating that though he was the President of the Association, he submitted resignation to that office on 19.07.2006 itself and that it was accepted by the Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department. He further contended that as on the date of scrutiny, he ceased to be the President of the Association and the appellate authority was also convinced about his eligibility to contest in the election. Through its order, dated 09.09.2008, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. Apart from setting aside the election of the petitioner, it held that the 1st respondent be declared elected. The petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal.

Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal relied upon Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers’ Management of Irrigation Systems act, 1997 Employees Managing of Irrigation System Act 1997 (for short ‘the 1997 Act’), as it stood before amendment, though the elections were held subsequent thereto. He contends that even if the petitioner held the office of President of the Association, as on the date of nomination, once the rejection is accepted before the date of scrutiny, the disqualification cannot be attached. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal had misread the evidence, misapplied the provisions of law and had set aside the election of the petitioner, contrary to the provisions of the 1997 Act and the Rules made thereunder.

The 1st respondent filed a caveat and on his behalf, Sri Ravindra Babu took notice and advanced extensive arguments. He contends that admittedly, the petitioner held the office of President of the Association, as on the date of filing of nomination, and it was not even mentioned by him that he submitted resignation to that office, much less, that it was accepted. He submits that the petitioner did not choose to file the letter of resignation or the proceedings, through which it was accepted, in the evidence. He further submits that the 1997 Act had only stated that the resignation of an elected office bearer shall be accepted by the prescribed authority and no Rules have been framed in this regard. Learned counsel pleads that unless and until the Superintending Engineer is prescribed as the authority to accept resignation, the so-called proceedings of acceptance, dated 19.07.2006, cannot be taken into consideration. It is also urged that the Returning Officer, who deposed as R.W.5, categorically stated that the petitioner did not even mention that he submitted resignation to the office of President of the Association. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj has also advanced arguments, on the same lines.

The District Election Authority notified the following programme for election to the Gram Panchayat.

15.07.2006 - filing of nominations

19.07.2006 - last date for submission of nominations

20.07.2006 - scrutiny of nominations

21.07.2006 - objections to the nominations

22.07.2006 - disposal of objections

23.07.2006