KONERU RANGA RAO Vs. N SWAMY DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to order inspection, scrutiny and recount of all the ballot papers polled in the election to 81-Tiruvuru Assembly Constituency held during 1999 AP General Elections to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and set aside the election of 1st respondent on the ground of corrupt practices allegedly indulged in by the 1st respondent and irregularities allegedly committed during counting. 1st respondent filed Application No.347 of 2000 to strike down paragraphs 7 to 11 of the election petition on the ground that they are vague and frivolous. Petitioner filed his counter contending that the allegations regarding the corrupt practices were made only as a passing reference, and that as a matter of fact he is not either relying or basing his claim on any of the corrupt practices alleged in the petition. After hearing both sides, by the order dated 25-4-2000, paragraphs relating to corrupt practices in the petition were ordered to be struck off. Thus the petition, now, is only on the ground of irregularities in counting.

(2.) The allegations, in brief, in the petition are, during 1999 A.P. General Assembly Elections to the Tiruvuru Assembly Constituency reserved for SC candidate, petitioner and 1st respondent were the principal contestants on behalf of India National Congress (INC) and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) respectively. Though 2nd respondent contested on behalf of CPM Party, 3rd respondent as independent candidate and respondents 4 to 5 on behalf of Bahujan Front and Anna TDP respectively, their contest was only norminal. Out of 1,30,968 votes polled, 2623 votes were rejected and only 1,28,345 were counted as valid votes and out of them 60,123 votes were declared as polled in favour of petitioner and 61,206 votes were declared as polled in favour of the 1st respondent, and thus 1 st respondent was declared elected by a margin of 1083. 1st respondent got posted the employees in the office of the Executive Engineer, Mylavaram named in the petition and the employees in Schools at Tiruvuru as the counting staff with a view to manipulate the counting of votes. Counting staff being influenced by the wife of the 1 st respondent, who is the Divisional Accounts Officer, in the office of the Executive Engineer, (Roads and Buildings) Mylavaram, mixed the votes cast in favour of the petitioner with the votes cast in favour of the 1st respondent, in spite of protests made by the counting agents of the petitioner. The counting agents of the 1st respondent had easy access to the counting tables, but the counting agents of the petitioner were asked to sit ten feet away from the counting tables and so they were not able to verify the markings on the ballot papers to satisfy themselves as to in whose favour they were cast, and their validity. Though Manikyala Rao, an employee in the office of the Executive Engineer, R&B Department at Mylavaram, was appointed as a member of the counting staff, his son was permitted to act as the counting agent of the 1st respondent. Validly cast votes in favour of the petitioner were either declared invalid or were counted in favour of the 1st respondent. Since counting agents of the petitioner found that signatures on some of the ballot papers were child-like or made by an illiterate, suspecting rigging, Chief Election Agent of the petitioner requested the Returning Officer to invalidate those votes, but the Returning Officer allowed the counting staff to count them in favour of the 1st respondent. Because of the irregularities that took place during counting, the result of the election was materially affected and thereby 1st respondent was declared elected by a margin of 1083 votes. Had the counting taken place properly petitioner would have been declared elected because he was in the lead till sixth round of counting in spite, the irregularities committed in those six rounds. The Returning Officer declining to receive a representation for recount given by his counting agent, declared the result of election in a hurry. Hence the petition.

(3.) 1st respondent filed his written statement denying the material allegations made against him in the petition and alleging that neither he nor his wife had a role to play in the posting of counting staff. Out of the 11 persons named in para 9 of the petition, only one person is from the office of the Executive Engineer, R&B Department. He has no acquaintance with the teachers from Sarvodaya School who were posted as the counting staff. The averments in the petition that the counting staff, under his influence, mixed the votes cast in favour of the petitioner with votes cast in his favour and that the counting agents of the petitioner were not able to see the markings on the ballot papers, and that his counting agents had free access to counting tables and that votes cast in favour of the petitioner were either declared invalid or were counted in his favour and that many ballot papers contained child-like or illiterate person's signatures and that those votes were also counted in his favour in spite of protests by the counting agents of petitioner are denied. The averment relating to the counting agent of petitioner giving a representation to the Returning Officer for a recount and the Returning Officer declining to receive the same and declaring the result is denied.