KOMMURI PRATAP REDDY Vs. PONNALA LAKSHMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Election Petition is filed to direct the recount and scrutiny of all the ballot papers and to declare the election of the first respondent as elected from 98-Jangaon Assembly Constituency, Warangal District in the General Elections held in the month of April 2009 as illegal, null and void and to declare the petitioner as duly elected from 98-Jangaon Assembly Constituency, Warangal District in the said General Elections and to award the costs of the petition. The brief facts pleaded in the election petition are as follows:

(2.) It is submitted by the petitioner that he contested as a nominee of T.R.S. party in 2004 elections from 261-Cheryal Assembly Constituency. In the said election, there was alliance between T.R.S. party, Congress Party and both communist parties. In that election, the petitioner was elected by huge majority of 25,254 votes against the T.D.P. candidate who was his nearest rival. Subsequently, on the issue of formation of separate Telangana State, all the T.R.S. party M.L.As. including the petitioner resigned their posts on the ground that the Congress Party went back on the promise of formation of separate Telangana. As a result, by-elections were held in May, 2008 to all the constituencies which fell vacant. In the said by-election, T.R.S. party contested on its own without any alliance with any political party. The daughter-in-law of the first respondent Smt. Ponnala Vaishali contested against the petitioner in the said election as a candidate of Congress Party and the petitioner had one the election by a large majority of 14,643 votes against her. It is submitted by the petitioner that the first respondent Ponnala Lakshmaiah by then was a Minister for Major Irrigation in the State Cabinet worked hard for the success of his daughter-in-law but she was defeated by the petitioner.

(3.) Nextly, if is submitted that prior to the general elections to the assembly in April, 2009, there was de-limitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies in the entire country as well as in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the de-limitation, 261-Cheryal Assembly Constituency was abolished and in its place 98-Jangaon Assembly Constituency was constituted by including four mandals of erstwhile Cheryal Assembly Constituency viz. Cheryal, Maddur, Bachannapeta, Narmetta and Jangaon municipality and Jangaon Rural Mandal of the old Jangaon assembly constituency were included in the reconstituted Jangaon Assembly Constituency. According to the petitioner, the T.R.S. party was very strong in all the four mandals of erstwhile Cheryal Assembly Constituency as well as Jangaon municipality and Jangaon Rural Mandal. There was also an electoral alliance between T.R.S. party, T.D.P. and both communist parties in the general elections held in April, 2009. In the seat adjustment, Jangaon Assembly Constituency seat was allotted to T.R.S. party. Therefore, the version of the petitioner is that the petitioner who had support of other political parties in the alliance must secure large majority of at least what he had secured in 2004 general elections. It is further submitted by him that the survey reports of the government channels as well as the private channels also indicated that the petitioner would secure huge majority of votes and the defeat of the first respondent is almost certain. The counting of votes was held on 16.05.2009 in the premises of Agricultural Market Committee, Enumamula, Warangal. Twelve tables were arranged for counting f votes, a black board was fixed for displaying the votes secured by round-wise counting and telephone facilities were provided for the print and electronic media. Barricades were fixed for each table and the counting agents were made to sit beyond the barricades. The countering of votes was commenced from 8 A.M. onwards. The version of the petitioner is that the first respondent who was afraid of his defeat staring at him brought pressure on the 12th respondent, the Returning Officer and the counting personnel to manage that he is elected. It is further submitted by the petitioner that in the normal course, the counting of votes would be completed within a period of four hours i.e. by about 12 noon. But, the Returning Officer and counting personnel purposely went on counting the votes slowly with a view to have some time for manipulation of votes and also to know the trend of counting of votes in other constituencies in the State. The counting took place for about nearly 8 hours from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M., the contest was mainly between the petitioner and the first respondent. The petitioner was securing huge majority of votes in each round of counting than the first respondent. But, the counting supervisors, instead of recording the correct number of votes secured, were inflating the votes secured in favour of the first respondent than what he actually received and proportionately decreasing the number of votes polled in favour of the petitioner than what he actually received. After three or four rounds of counting, the counting personal stopped displaying the votes counted in respect of other rounds of counting on the black board. The counting supervisors were taking the signatures of counting agents hurriedly stating that they must go for the next round of counting and if there are any mistakes they can be corrected at the Returning Officer's table. The Returning Officer was stating that he would look into the complaints at the end of counting of votes. This method of recording incorrect figures went on till the end of counting of all the votes. The 12th respondent did not count or correct the actual votes counted in spite of the request made by the election agent of the petitioner. In spite of all that it was found after totaling of all the votes that the petitioner secured majority of 44 votes than the first respondent. The 12th respondent announced that the petitioner secured majority of 44 votes than the first respondent.