G RAMALINGAM Vs. KANDUKURI RAGHAVULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the Order of the Election Tribunal (District Court, Warangal) in Election O.P.No.3 of 1962 in its file. The relevant facts may be stated thus : The petitioner, Raghavulu, the first respondent Ramalingam, and the second respondent Lakshmaiah, contested the election for membership of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Jangaon Constituency in the 1962 elections. The petitioner secured 16,350 votes, the first respondent 16,361, votes and the second respondent 2,827 votes, and consequently the first respondent was declared elected by the Returning Officer on 26th February, 1962. The disappointed candidate, Raghavulu, filed the Election Petition before the Tribunal for invalidating the election of the first respondent, and for scrutiny and recount of all the ballot papers, and for a declaration that he is the duly elected candidate.

(2.) His contentions before the Tribunal were that, though on the day of counting 12 tables were opened, the petitioner was permitted to have only seven counting agents, and thus they could not keep an effective watch during the counting, that the Returning Officer was not present in the counting hall, that the counting was conducted by the Tahsildar, Warangal, who was the Assistant Returning Officer, that there was no order in the counting hall by reason of the presence of a number of police officers and supporters of the Congress party, and that the counting was not done fairly as per the Rules. The petitioner's complaint was that, the ballot boxes were not opened in the serial order, that the number of votes secured by each candidate were written on a blackboard kept in the hall, that as per the figures noted thereon, the petitioner secured four votes more than the first respondent. But the Tahsildar wiped out those figures, and put new figures, declaring that the first respondent secured a majority of 29 votes over the petitioner. After the Returning Officer came back, the petitioner filed a petition for recounting of the votes. But the Returning Officer allowed the petition only in part, and recounted only the rejected votes, but not the votes polled, and as a result of the recounting he declared that the first respondent won the election by a majority of 11 votes.

(3.) It is the petitioner's case that the procedure adopted by the Returning Officer was illegal, and that in the confusion and medley that prevailed in the counting hall, several ballot papers were pilferred and taken outside the counting hall, and were admittedly missing, that the number of ballot papers issued and those found in the boxes were not identical, and that there was reason to believe that the ballot boxes were tampered with, that some of the ballot papers were found marked with ink which was not supplied at the booths, that some ballot papers marked in favour of the petitioner were included in the first respondent's ballot papers, that there were six tendered votes which had to be added to the number of votes polled by the petitioner. The petitioner averred that, there were grounds to believe that there was a mistake in the counting of votes, and the result of the election was materially affected due to these irregularities and illegalities. The petitioner therefore alleged that, according to his belief, he secured more votes than the first respondent. The second respondent, Lakshmaiah, remained ex parte and the petition was contested only by the first respondent, Ramalingam. He denied all the material allegations. He admitted that the Returning Officer was absent from the counting hall from 10 A.M. to 3 P.M., that at first the first respondent was declared to have won the election by a majority of 29 votes, but on recounting made by the Returning Officer, at the instance of the petitioner, the first respondent was declared elected only by a majority of 11 votes. He contended, inter alia, that the prayer in respect of the tendered votes could not be accepted, because the identity of the persons who cast them was not established.