D VENKATA REDDY Vs. R SULTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Venkata Reddy who was respondent No. 1 in the election petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The appeal arises out of the general elections held to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in March 1972 from Gooty Assembly constituency. The appellant Venkata Reddy T. Papa Sab and R. Sultan (the election petitioner before the High Court) applied for congress ticket for the Gooty Assembly Constituency seat. The District Congress Committee, Anantapur recommended the names of R. Sultan, Papa Sab and Ramachandra Goud but did not recommended the name of the appellant. The Andhra Pradesh Provincial Congress Committee, however, recommended the name of R. Sultan the first respondent alone. THIS recommendation appears to have been accepted by the All India Congress Committee which gave the congress ticket to the first respondent R. Sultan on 1/02/1972 as a result thereof the other candidates, namely, the appellant Venkata Reddy, T. Papa Sab and Venkata Subbayya decided to contest the election as independent candidates, whereas Venkata Naidu got the Congress (O) ticket. The polling to the aforesaid constituency was held on 8/03/1972 and counting was done on 12/03/1972 on which date the result was also declared. The appellant was declared elected having secured 19,974 votes polled in the constituency Respondent No. 1 R. Sultan lost by a narrow margin of 471 votes having polled 19,503 votes. The other respondents were accordingly defeated and we are not at all concerned with their cases.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 R. Sultan filed an election petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 20/04/1972 which was assigned to Sriramulu, J., who tried the election petition. For the sake of convenience we shall refer Venkata Reddy as the appellant and R. Sultan who was the election petitioner before the High Court as the contesting respondent. The contesting respondent sought to challenge the election of the appellant on various grounds and alleged that the appellant had indulged in a large number of corrupt practices as envisaged by Section 123 of the Act, namely, bribery, corruption, communal propaganda, impersonation of voters, excessive expenses, improper rejection and reception of ballot papers etc. The contesting respondent also filed an application before the trial Juge that as number of irregularities were committed in the rejection and acceptance of the ballot papers, the Court should allow scrutiny and recounting of the votes. The Court, after considering the evidence of the parties on this point, eventually allowed the application, but ultimately it held that even if there was any irregularity it had no caused any material change in the election. The petition was resisted by the appellant who emphatically denied all the allegations made by the contesting respondent and submitted that the elections were free and fair and that the appellant had not indulged in any corrupt partice at all. The appellant further pleaded that all the allegations made by the contesting respondent were figment of his imagination and were totally untrue. On the question of corrupt practices, particularly the distribution of objectionable pamphlets, as the contesting respondent had not given full and material particulars in his election petition, the appellant filed an application on 7/07/1972 praying that the Court may direct the contesting respondent to file better particulars by way of amendment. The Court directed the contesting respondent to supply fresh particulars and accordingly the contesting respondent filed his application for amendment by incorporating material particulars on 29/08/1972. On the pleadings of the parties the High Court framed as many as 35 issues in the present case. After taking the evidence of the parties the Court decided all the issues against the contesting respondent except issues Nos. 7, 26 and 27 which were decided in favour of the contesting respondent. In view of the findings given by the learned Judge the election of the appellant was set aside, but the learned Judge refused to grant the relief to the contesting respondent for being declared as duly elected to the seat in question. It is against this decision that the appellant has come up to this Court in appeal.

(3.) IN Bhanu Kumar v. Mohan Lal., (1971) I SCC 370 = (AIR 1971 SC 2025) this Court observed as follows: