SATRUCHARLA VIJAYA RAMA RAJU Vs. NIMMAKA JAYA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant successfully contested the State Assembly Elections in 1999 from No. 8 Naguru (ST) Assembly Constituency in the State of Andhra Pradesh. His election was challenged by respondent No.1 herein, in Election Petition No. 13 of 1999, under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Sections 5 and 100 (1)(d)(i) of the Act. The contention raised by the first respondent was that the appellant was not qualified to contest from a constituency reserved for the scheduled tribes. According to respondent No.1, the election petitioner, the appellant was a Kshatriya and was not eligible to contest from a constituency reserved for the scheduled tribes. His claim that he belongs to the "Konda Dora" tribe, was not true. Since he was ineligible to contest from the constituency, his election was liable to be declared void and set aside. The first respondent also prayed that he may be declared elected instead.

(2.) The appellant resisted the election petition. He pleaded that he belongs to the "Konda Dora" tribe which was a notified Scheduled Tribe. He was neither a Kondaraju nor a Kshatriya. Even otherwise, Kondaraju and "Konda Dora" were synonymous and the "Konda Dora" tribe was included in the list of Scheduled Tribes. He further pleaded that his earlier election from No. 8 Naguru (ST) Assembly Constituency, the self-same constituency, was challenged by a voter in Election Petition No. 13 of 1983 on the very same ground that he did not belong to the "Konda Dora" tribe. That election petition, after contest, was dismissed by the learned Judge to whom it was assigned after a regular trial and the said decision barred a fresh enquiry into the same question in the present election petition and the decision therein was conclusive on his status. He also explained that his ancestors and himself described themselves as Kshatriyas in view of the status enjoyed by them in their tribe and not because they belonged to the Kshatriya community. An ancestor of his had been conferred the title "Satrucharla" and it was the surname of his family. His predecessors and his cousin had all contested in prior elections from reserved constituencies and no objection had ever been raised prior to 1983 regarding their status. In a similar case, where the members of the family of a candidate had described themselves as Kshatriya, the Supreme Court had held in an election petition that was filed challenging their status, that as a matter of fact that candidate belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and was not a Kshatriya. He raised a further contention that the caste certificate issued by the competent authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 to the effect that he belongs to the "Konda Dora" tribe was final and binding on the court.

(3.) Issues were raised, inter alia, on pleas that the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 operated as res judicata with regard to the status of the appellant, that the judgment therein was a judgment in rem and consequently conclusive on the status of the appellant and that the present election petition was not maintainable, so long as the community certificate issued by the Collector remained in force. At the instance of the appellant, the above three issues were taken up for consideration as preliminary issues. By order dated 13-12-2002, the assigned Judge of the High Court held that the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983, dated 16-1-1984 did not operate as res judicata on the status of the appellant as far as the present election petition is concerned; that the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 was not a judgment in rem and could not bind those who were not parties to it and that the said adjudication did not bar the trial of the present election petition. He held that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 or the certificate issued thereunder did not have any impact on the trial of the election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and that the election petition had to be tried and decided on the basis of evidence that may be adduced in it. This order of the learned Judge was challenged before this Court in SLP (C) Nos. 1438-1439 of 2003. This Court, by order dated 7-2-2003, dismissed those petitions for special leave. Thereafter, evidence was taken in the election petition. Documents were marked on the side of the parties and oral evidence was led. The learned Judge, on an appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the appellant did not belong to "Konda Dora" community, a Scheduled Tribe and was consequently ineligible to contest the election from a constituency reserved for the scheduled tribes. Thus, the learned Judge set aside the election of the appellant from No. 8 Naguru (ST) Assembly Constituency in the general elections held on 11-9-1999. The prayer of the first respondent to declare him elected, was declined on the ground that such relief was not liable to be granted at that point of time and in view of the dissolution of the assembly itself. Feeling aggrieved by the setting aside of his election on the ground that he did not belong to a scheduled tribe, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.