M PITCHA RAO Vs. N MADHAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Writ Petition was declared as elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Mangollu of Vatsavai Mandal in Krishna distirct at the election held on 12-3-1988 and he prays for quashing the order of the Flection Tribunal (3rd respondent herein) dismissing I.A.No. 647 of 1988 in O.P.No.3 of 1988 dated 22-2-1989. The said OP.No. 8 of 1988 was filed by the 1st respondent herein, who is the unsuccessful candidate in the said election, questioning the election of the petitioner herein at the said election. Tne said I. A.No. 647 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner herein under Rule 16 of Order 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 lor striking of allegations in paragraphs 3,4, 6, 7 and 8 of the election petition in the said O.P. on the ground that they are frivolous, vexatious and unnecessary and did not constitute any cause of action as they suffer from want of details or particulars.

(2.) The 3rd respondent held in his order in the said LA. dated 22-2-1989 that the allegations of the 1st respondent herein in paragraphs 3,4,6,7 and 8 of his election petition are not frivolous, vexatious and unnecessary and he also held that they constitute cause of action. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner questions the said finding of the 3rd respondent in respect of allegations in the said election petition in paragraphs 6,5 and 8 only. He also contends that the allegations in paragraph 9 of the said election petition are highly vague. But the said contention was not raised in the said I A. and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the said contention for the first time now in the present Writ Petition wherein what he is seeking is only the quashing of the order of the 3rd respondent in the said I.A;No. 647 of 1988.

(3.) So far as the allegations in paragraph 5 of the said election petition are concerned also, the petitioner herein has not questioned them in the said LA. But the said allegations are similar to the allegations made in paragraph 8 of the election petition. The allegations in paragraph 5 of the said election petition are that certain persons who were enrolled as voters in the electoral roll of Mangollu Gram Panchayat have got themselves enrolled once again as electors in the electoral roll for Jayanthipuram Panchayat in Jaggaiahpeta Rural Mandalam and that the said persons exercised their franchise twice by voting in the election of the Sarpanch of Jay anthipuram Panchayat and also in the election of the Sarpanch of Mangollu Panchayat and that the same was in violation of Sectionsl4-B and 14-C of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegations in paragraph 8 of the said election petition are that certain persons who were enrolled as voters in the electoral roll for Mangollu Gram Panchayat were also enrolled as voters in the electoral roll for Radlakunta Gram Panchayat in Kodad Mandalam and that they also exercised their franchise in both the village Panchayats and that the said votes cannot be counted in both the villages and that therefore they will have to be rejected as invalid votes. This question is concluded by several decisions of this Court. In Dharmaiah vs. Basavaiah ' a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-