KELLAMPALLI SUNDARA RAO Vs. VALETI RAGHAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order in Original Petition No. 29 of 1981, dated 16th February, 1983 passed by the Election Court-cum-Principal Munsif Magistrate, Narsarappet. The facts that arose for filing this writ petition are as under:

(2.) The respondent No. 1, Valeti Raghava Rao, filed an election petition. O. P. No. 29 of 1981 against the present writ petitioner impleading him as respondent I and Election Officer, Ganapavaram Gram Panchayat, Chilakaluripet taluq, Guntur district as respondent 2. The main allegations in the election petition are that the election to the Office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Ganapavaram was held on 4th June, 1981 under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (for short The Act of 1964) and that the petitioner and respondent 1 were the candidates to the Office of Sarpanch. Due to the indifference of enumerators, several ineligible persons who were not ordinary residents of Ganapavaram village have been registered as voters, that no proper notice was also issued at the time of preparation and publication of draft electoral rolls. Even people from other villages whose gram panchayat elections were held on 4th June, 1981, cast their vote in their respective gram panchayat elections before noon and came to Ganapavaram village in the after noon and voted. It was further alleged that even if for any reason a person's name is enrolled as a voter in different electoral rolls of different panchayats and exercises his franchise more than once in more than one gram panchayat election, his voting in both the panchayat elections should be invalid, at least, his vote exercised lastly in the point of time, should be invalidated. In view of this, the persons shown in the schedule who have exercised their franchise, at the instance of respondent 1 and his supporter in his favour, should necessarily be invalidated. In such an event the petitioner would secure about 40 votes more than the respondent and he is entitled for a declaration as Sarpanch elected. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that it is necessary to order recount of the polled votes and to reject the ballot papers relating Jo the persons shown in the schedule as invalid and declare the petitioner as Sarpanch elected on securing the majority of votes.

(3.) The writ petitioner who is 1st respondent in the election petition filed a counter wherein he denied all the allegations made in the election petition. It is stated that there was enumeration of voters and thereafter, electoral roll was published in accordance with the provisions of law. The names that are found in the voters list of the village panchayat Ganapavaram are the names of the persons who are the residents of Ganapavaram village. There was proper publication of the draft electoral roll in the village on 24th November, 1980 by affixing the same to the notice board of the village by beat of tom tom and final electoral roll was published on 31st December, 1980 in the village. The publication of the final electoral roll has become final, by itself, and the same is conclusive until it is amended by ' the competent authority, in accordance with the provisions of law. The electoral roll comes into force immediately upon its final publication and the election Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any question with regard to the registration of names in the electoral roll. The allegations that the persons shown in the schedule annexed to the election petition are also voters in their permanent gram panchayat and that they have exercised their votes in their gram panchayat elections held prior to 4th June, 1981 and in some cases, on the same day and that the people from other villages where gram panchayat elections were held on 4th June, 1981, cast their votes in their respective gram panchayat elections before noon and came to Ganapavaram village after noon and the objections of the petitioner and his agents were overruled holding that the polling officers were helpless when once the persons names were found in the electoral roll as electors. In fact persons whose names are mentioned in the schedule have exercised their votes in different panchayats on the same day, is absolutely false. It is true, the petitioner has secured 2796 votes. Whereas the respondent 1 secured 2865 votes. No allegation is made out that is necessary for order of re-count of the polled votes. There is no pleading with regard to the irregularities in counting, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the remedy of recounting of ballot papers. The respondent No. 2 to the election petition, also filed a counter. On the basis of the allegations, three points. were raised in the election petition. The first ground raised by the election petitioner was that the names ot the persons shown in the schedule appended to the election petition and some others found in the electoral rolls, relates to seasonal workers who come to Ganapavaram village in search of temporary employment as labourers on daily wages, as such, they eannot be construed as ordinary residents of Ganapavaram being eligible for registration as voters of the said gram panchayat under section 14 (b) of the Act of 1964. The second ground in the petition was that there is no publication of draft electoral roll to enable the petitioner and the villagers to lodge their objections before the electoral officer against the illegal inclusion of several ineligible persons as electors The third ground raised in the election petition was that the objections raised by the petitioner and his agents at the time of polling of 150 ineligible voters, was overruled by the polling officers expressing their helplessness on the ground that their names were found therein in the electoral rolls as electors. Therefore, the petitioner sought for the invalidation of, at least such ineligible votes which were cast lastly, in point of time. It is the specific allegation of the election petitioner that all the persons shown in the schedule, have cast their votes, first in their respective permanent gram panchayat elections before they exercised their votes for the second time at Ganapavaram in the afternoon of 4th June, 1981 at the instance of the respondent No. 1. So far, as the first and second points are concrned they are not pressed and argued in this writ petition. Only the third point remains for the debate. Even before the election Court also, the first and second points were not seriously pressed. The election Court was of the view that when amendment was brought into section 14 of the Act of 1964 and sub-clauses (2) and (3) were added in section 14-B, the section provided that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll in more than one gram panchayat and no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any gram panchayat more than once. The election Court took the view that under sub-section (7) of ssction 14 C, no person shall vote at an election under this Act in more than one ward or more than once in the same ward and if he does so, all his votes shall be invalid. Therefore, with reference to these provision, the election Court observed that: "But on a combined reading of sub-section (7) of section 14-C and sub-sections (2) and (1) of section 14-B, one can certainly feel the effect of the newly amended provision laid down under subsection 14 (b) sub-clauses (2) and (3). By virtue of the incorporation of this provision, after the amendment, registration of a vote in two gram panchayats is a clear violation of the provisions of the Act. Right to vote is one conferred under a statute to an individual provided that he could satisfy certain qualifications prescribed under the provisions of the Act. The very same Act provides prohibition for registering one as a voter in two Gram Panchayats. Exercising such vote in an election is a consequential act, basing on the vote aquired by violating the provisions of the Act. If the registration of the vote itself is illegal, the consequential act, namely, exercising of such vote also should necessarily become illegal. As already stated, a statute conferred right to vote on an individual only once in violation of that right, if one exercises his vote twice, at least, his last vote in point of time, has got to be invalidated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to the evidence on record states that all the persons shown in the schedule have exercised their vote for second time in the disputed Gram Panchayat Election in the afternoon having exercised the first vote in their respective villages. If a person exercises his vote more then once in the same Gram Panchayat, invalidation of both of votes as envisaged under the aforesaid provisions of Act is possible in a petition challenging the election of that particular Gram Panchayat. When an individual exercises his vote twice in two Gram Panchayats, the question of invalidating both the votes does not crop up since the dispute relating the election of the both the villages would not be before the Court in a single petition. In the light of the above provisions I see sufficient force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the vote exercised by the individual for the second time which is last in point of time, is to be invalidated." As position of law was summed up by the election Court in that manner, on the second part as to actually how many votes were exercised, the learned Judge was of the view that as many as to persons shown in the schedule had exercised vote, that too in favour of the respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner. It will be useful to extract that portion of the judgment of the election Court: