Back
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
Regu Maheswara Rao
Versus
Vhyricherla Kishore Chandra Surayanarayana Deo & Others
Election Petition No. 20 OF 2009
Decided on: 31-12-2010
Constitution of India - Articled 366 (25), 342 (1) and 342 - Representation of the People, Act, 1951 - Section 81 r/w Section 5 (a), 100 (1)(a) and (d) (i), 5 (a) , 80 , 101 , sub-section (1) of Section 100 , 82 , 83 - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Sections 35,65,90, 68 to 71 – Land Acquisition Act - Section 51-A - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 57 - Parliamentary Constituency - Recovery of amount - Enquiry - Petitioner is challenging the Election of 1st respondent - Parliamentary Constituency election to the said Parliamentary Constituency was held respondent was fielded from Indian National Congress Party - Respondents are the other contesting candidates from different parties and as independents - Results of the said election was declared on-and in the said election respondent was declared elected as Member - Parliamentary Constituency - Election petitioner is a registered voter and an elector from Ward Booth Sl. Municipality - Assembly Constituency which comes under Parliamentary Constituency - 1st respondent is a permanent resident of Fort District hails from a family - Family is also It was known in the entire district of and also in the north coastal districts that the 1st respondent and his family belongs to caste and they were treated in the districts as otherwise known as only - Both the families are related to each other - Family is also related family district which also belong caste - Respondent nor any member of his family has any marital or other relations with any one of the family belonging to Scheduled Tribes in either District or any other agency area in the State of Andhra Pradesh – Held, It is one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that in Ex.P12 which is the statement given by R.W.1 before the Enquiry Officer he stated that tribe of the same branch - So as per the admission made by R.W.1 in Ex - It can be said that he belongs to which is not included as one of the tribes in the Constitution - But the entire statement has to be read together for the purpose of deciding whether he belongs to Dora for which R.W.1 has given an explanation that the name of tribal ended with - But later it was replaced with suffix and later it was suffixed - Over a period of time, if the suffix is changed from one name to another, the community of a person would not be changed – Suffix has been replaced as because his father died at early age and his mother who hails from Deo family took over - Therefore, Ex. cannot be said to be conclusive proof that 1st respondent belongs community – Therefore evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner does not establish beyond all reasonable doubt that 1st respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. - Therefore petitioner failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt – Petition is dismissed
1. This petition is filed under Section 81 r/w Section 5 (a), 100 (1)(a) and (d) (i) of the Representation of the People, Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act 1951’) to declare the election of the 1st respondent to 18 Araku Lok Sabha (S.T.) Parliamentary Constituency to be void and set aside the same and further direct the respondent No.12 to initiate proceedings for recovery of amount from 1st respondent for the period enjoyed by him as Member of Lok Sabha.
2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present petition may be delineated as follows:
The election petitioner is challenging the election of 1st respondent to 18 Araku Lok Sabha (S.T.) Parliamentary Constituency. The election to the said Parliamentary Constituency was held on 16-04-2009 and 1st respondent was fielded from Indian National Congress Party. Respondents 2 to 11 are the other contesting candidates from different parties and as independents. The results of the said election was declared on 16-05-2009 and in the said election, the 1st respondent was declared elected as Member of Lok Sabha from 18 Araku Lok Sabha (S.T.) Parliamentary Constituency. The election petitioner is a registered voter and an elector from Ward No.2, Booth No.36, Sl.No.841 of Salur Municipality, Salur Assembly Constituency, which comes under Araku Lok Sabha Parliamentary Constituency. The 1st respondent is a permanent resident of Fort Kurupam, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. He hails from a Kshatriya family. The family is also of a Zamindar. It was known in the entire district of Vizianagaram and also in the north coastal districts that the 1st respondent and his Vyricherla family belongs to Kshatriya caste and they were treated in the districts as Kshatriya otherwise known as Rajus only. There is another family by name Shatrucharla in Vizianagaram District, which also belong to Kshatriya caste. Both the families are related to each other. The Vyricherla family is also related to Poosapati family of Vizianagaram district, which also belong to Kshatriya caste. To the knowledge of the petitioner, neither the 1st respondent nor any member of his family has any marital or other relations with any one of the family belonging to Scheduled Tribes in either Vizianagaram District or any other agency area in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The 18 Araku Lok Sabha (S.T.) Parliamentary Constituency is reserved for Scheduled Tribes in the elections held in the year 2009 after delimitation. Since the Constituency is reserved for Scheduled Tribes, only a member belonging to any one of the Scheduled Tribes can only contest the election. Since the 1st respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe of Vizianagaram District or for the matter in any other parts of India, he is not qualified to contest from the 18 Araku Lok Sabha (S.T.) Parliamentary Constituency. Under Section 5 (a) of the Act, 1951, the 1st respondent is not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in a Legislative Assembly in the State of Andhra Pradesh, since he is not a member of any of the tribes in the State of Andhra Pradesh and contested in a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Since the 1st respondent was declared elected from the said Constituency and there is a disqualification against him from contesting from the said constituency, the election held to the said constituency has thus become null and void.
The petitioner having come to know that the 1st respondent does not belong to any one of the Scheduled Tribe community, lodged a petition before the District Collector, Vizianagaram on 01-12-2005 to conduct enquiry about the social status of 1st respondent. Before filing the said petition under A.P. (SC,ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 (Act No.16 of 1993), the election petitioner gathered information both oral and documentary to establish that the 1st respondent belongs to Kshatriya caste, but not to any one of the Scheduled Tribe community. In the registered documents No.3 of 190
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
