Back
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
Regu Maheswara Rao
Vs
Vhyricherla Kishore Chandra Surayanarayana Deo and 11 others
Election Petition No. 20 of 2009
Decided on : 31-12-2010
b) REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951, Section 81:- Documents produced by the petitioners, which are registered documents which need not mention the caste of the executants describing the executants, who is grandfather of the respondents, cannot be conclusive proof of the allegation that he belongs to kshathriya community as stated therein when the respondent objected to their marking itself. These documents which are 30 years may be presumed to be true with regard to their execution and attestation, but not with regard to their contents under the Evidence Act. (Paras 18 and 34)
c) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Sections 90 and 65:- The presumption with regard to 30 years old is only with regard to their attestation and execution. Their contents should be proved by other evidence on record. (Para 50)
d) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Sections 90 and 65 - Registration Act, 1908, Section 57 :- There is no necessity for mentioning the caste of the executants to a document. If at all any mention of the caste is made in in its summary it is for the purpose of identity and have no probative value. (Para 51)
e) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, Order 7 Rule 1:- Mention of the caste of the plaintiff in the cause title of the decree is not called for. Even if so mentioned it is not the conclusive proof of his caste, but shall be read as meant for identification thereof. (Para 52)
f) EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Section 35:- Copies of the School admission register mentioning the caste of the candidate is also not conclusive proof as it is not verified and attested by the public officer, principal or from the education department. (Para 57)
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 1901, 125
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
