LEELA RANI P Vs. AGENCY DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1 in O.P.No. 1/2001 before the first respondent-Election Tribunal is the petitioner herein. The petitioner as well as the second respondent contested for the post of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) member, Venkatapuram Segment of Khammam District and the petitioner got elected as ZPTC member on 12-7-2001. The second respondent herein filed O.P.No. 1 of 2001 before the first respondent questioning the election of the petitioner invoking A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Election Rules, 1995"). The first respondentElection Tribunal disposed of O.P.No. 1 of 1001 setting aside the petitioner's election as ZPTC member from Venkatapuram segment of Khammam District and further declared that the second respondent has been duly elected as ZPTC member by a margin of 5 votes. Questioning the same, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No. 16661/2001 stating that the first respondent passed ex parte orders on 21-7-2001 without issuing any notice or conducting any enquiry directed the third respondent-Election Officer to deposit all ballot papers and connected records and registers before it and even though the petitioner filed objections with regard to ex parte order passed on 21-7-2001, the first respondent without appreciating the objections and without recording any findings passed an order dt. 30-7-2001 directing the M.R.O. Bhadrachalam for recounting, which was done on 30-7-2001 itself and basing upon the recounting, second respondent has been duly declared as elected ZPTC member. The said writ petition was allowed by this court. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

(2.) Opposing the claim of the petitioner the second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that once the first respondent has got power in deciding the election petition pending before him, he can always condone the delay in payment of court-fee in view of Section 149 instead of rejecting the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, therefore, the order passed by the first respondent rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner does not warrant any interference. It is further stated that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable while trying election petition by the first respondent, there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the first respondent dt. 15-11-2001.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent reiterated the very same contentions which were raised before the Election Tribunal and relied upon the judgments which were cited before it.