ELCHURI THULISAMMA Vs. ELCHURI SAMRAJYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elchuri Thulisamma, the Revision petitioner herein is the 1st respondent in I.A.No.1477/2001 in E.O.P.No.7/2001 on the file of Election Tribunal/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki and the petitioner in the main Election O.P.No.7/2001. The 1st respondent herein who is the 1 st respondent in the E.O.P. aforesaid, Elchuri Samarajyam, filed I.A.No.1477/2001 and LA .No.1478/2001 praying for striking off the pleadings in paras 3 (b) to 3(f) of the Election petition under Order 6 Rule 16 r/w. Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "Code", on the ground that the allegations are vague, untenable and devoid of particulars, and also filed yet another application under Order 7 Rule 17 (sic.11) r/w. Section 151 of the Code, read along with Rule 5(ii) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995, hereinafter referred to as "Rules" in short, to reject or dismiss the Election Petition. The Election Tribunal/ learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki by the order dated 8-10-2002 partly allowed I.A.No.1477/2001 striking out the following pleadings from the Election Petition:

(2.) Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would maintain that this application was thought of only with a view to delay or postpone the disposal of the Election O.P. The learned Counsel also had taken this court through the material facts pleaded in Paras 3(c), 3(d) and 3(f) and had contended that the facts pleaded in these paras definitely do answer the test of "material facts". The learned Counsel also submitted that absolutely there is no ambiguity at all in the avernments in these paras and all the evidentiary details need not be narrated at this stage. The Counsel also would maintain that the principles applicable relating to the material facts and the pleadings under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 cannot be as such extended to Election Petitions under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act", and the Rules framed thereunder and the Election Tribunals while dealing with an application of this nature should have seen whether Rule 3(ii) of the Rules had been complied with or not and nothing more and nothing beyond. The learned Counsel also maintained that the evidentiary details to be adduced in relation to the Government servant and further allegations made as against the acts of such Government servant appointed as counting agent definitely cannot be decided at the threshold since it would amount to touching the merits of the matter which ultimately may have to be decided while deciding the main Election O.P. The learned Counsel also had explained the provisions of the present Act and the corresponding provisions under the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 and the difference of language employed in the relevant provisions. The learned Counsel would submit that at any rate these are aspects to be ultimately adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the Election O.P. and not at the threshold. The learned Counsel concluded that the power to be exercised by the Election Tribunal under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code being discretionary, the concerned Election Tribunal definitely had totally erred in striking out the pleadings instead ot directing the parties to further proceed with the matter by adducing necessary evidence to substantiate the respective contentions.

(3.) Per contra, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent would maintain that in the light of the Constitutional provisions under Part IX of the Constitution of India dealing with Panchayats Articles 243 to 243-O, the elections relating to these Panchayats, the local bodies, also may have to be treated on par with the elections governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The learned Counsel in all fairness submitted that no doubt there is some difference in the language of Rule 3(ii) of the Rules when compared with Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The learned Counsel would maintain that what is to be seen is whether the allegations made in paras which had been struck off conform to Rule 3(ii) of the Rules. The learned Counsel further made elaborate submissions relating to the material facts and material particulars and also had drawn the attention of this court to Section 11 of the present Act and Section 14 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. The learned Counsel also had explained the language employed in Section 211(7) of the Act and further contended that since the facts pleaded are not in conformity with Section 211 of the Act r/w. Rule 3(ii) of the Rules, the Election Tribunal is well justified in striking out the portions of the pleadings. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that certain allegations are just vague allegations and totally devoid of any particulars or details and hence definitely such allegations cannot answer the test of "material facts". Reliance was placed on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions.