CHALUVADI HANUMAYAMMA Vs. SANDRAPATI JAINABEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I. A. No. 946/2001 in E.O.P. No.3/2001 dated 28-3-2002 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to dismiss the Election Petition No.32001 for non- compliance of Rule 3 (2) of A. P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1995').

(2.) The 1st respondent herein filed the said Election Petition against the Election Officer, District Election Authority, Additional District Election Authority, Election Commission, petitioner herein and four others who contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat, Guntur District. The petitioner herein is the 5th respondent in the Election Petition and he is the Returned Candidate who has been declared elected as Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat.

(3.) It is stated in the Election Petition that the Vinukonda Gram Panchayat is reserved for general woman in the elections held on 20-8-2001. It is stated that after polling was over, the counting of votes was not done by the Election Officer properly and fairly by following the procedure under law. The Election Officer committed several irregularities, improprieties and illegalities. He violated the counting procedure very openly. He acted in a clear partisan and biased manner in favour of the petitioner herein and against the 1st respondent. The petitioner herein has been declared elected as Sarpanch on the basis of incorrect and false counting with a majority of 224 votes. The petitioner herein secured 9353 votes while the 1st respondent (Election Petitioner) secured 9,129 votes. The other respondent Nos.6 to 9 secured 164, 423, 132 and 41 votes respectively, 662 Votes were declared as invalid. The total number of votes polled were 19,904. It is further submitted that after the polling was completed, the Election Officer ought to have intimated to the 1st respondent in advance, the place and time of counting and the number of counting tables, Arranged for the purpose as per rules. He did not do so deliberately and kept the petitioner in darkness in that regard. He arranged in all 30 counting tables in two rows opposite to each other in 'U' fashion, while there was a block at 'U' shape curve which prevents the candidates and their election agents to move freely from one side to the other so as to observe counting position in both the sides. Further, one has to come out of the counting room and go inside again through different door from one side of 15 tables to the other side of 15 tables. It became impossible to observe and supervise the counting tables. The Election Officer, in the first instance, announced that there would be 10 counting tables and later on they were increased to 20 tables and finally to 30 tables. He did it at his will and pleasure. Another illegal act committed by the Election Officer was that he opened the ballot boxes in the absence of the Election Petitioner, her election agent and counting agent. He also got counting carried out even before the Election Petitioner and counting agents arrived at their respective tables. The ballot papers were sorted out candidate-wise without any opportunity being given to the counting agents for scrutiny for the purpose of their validity or otherwise. Arbitrariness ruled to the roost in declaring the ballot papers valid or invalid, rejected or doubtful votes ought to have been kept separately and subjected to further scrutiny and it was also not done in spite of repeated requests made by the election petitioner. The counting was carried on in a hurried manner so as not to allow the Election Petitioner or her counting agent to closely scrutinize the ballot papers. There was a total pell-mell in the counting hall. Immediately after counting was over, the Election Officer informed that she won the election with a margin of 325 votes and he said that he would declare the same shortly. But after one hour, the Election Officer made an illegal declaration that the petitioner herein got elected with a majority of 224 votes. The Election Petitioner-1st respondent protested against the illegal declaration and demanded for recounting of all the votes including 662 invalid votes as so-called majority was very much slender that is nearly l/3rd of the invalid votes. The Election Officer deliberately and adamantly refused to concede to the most reasonable request made by the 1st respondent both orally and through written representation. Thousands of people made big agitation demanding for recount of votes. He refused to recount the invalid votes by further scrutinizing the same as per the rules. All these illegal acts were committed as the Election Officer was totally partisan in favour of the petitioner herein. There was no scope at all for the petitioner herein to get more votes than the 1st respondent while she got full scope to win the election if counting had taken place fairly, properly and strictly observing the procedure under the law. The 1st respondent ought to have been declared as the Sarpanch. The declaration of the petitioner herein declaring as Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat is illegal and void. It is stated that the cause of action arose when the 1st respondent contested for the post of Sarpanch Vinukonda Gram Panchayat held on 20-8-2001 and when the Election Officer violated the procedure of counting of the votes of Sarpanch under law and when he made the illegal and void declaration in favour of the petitioner herein in a partisan manner on 20-8-2001. Accordingly, the 1st respondent prayed to pass an order declaring that the 1st respondent herein had won the Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat in the election held on 20-8-2001 by setting aside the declaration of the Election Officer stating that the petitioner herein had won the election as illegal and void. In the verification, it is stated that the above facts are true to the best of her knowledge and information and belief. In the list of the documents, a Photostat copy of the fax message sent by the 1st respondent on 22-8-2001 to the authorities demanding recount of the Sarpanch votes and another Photostat copy of the CPI Secretary to the Election Authorities demanding for recount of Sarpanch votes were only filed.