NIMMAKA JAYA RAJU Vs. SATRUCHARLA VIJAYA RAMA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTRODUCTION: This election petition is filed under Section 5,100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('the Act' for brevity) by an unsuccessful candidate of the Legislative Assembly Elections, 1999 to declare the election of the first respondent as Member of the Legislative Assembly from 8 Naguru (Schedule Tribe) Assembly constituency as void, to set aside the same and to declare him as duly elected to the said Assembly constituency. PLEADINGS:

(2.) The averments of the petition are briefly as follows:

(3.) The petitioner belongs to Jatapu tribe, which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribe (STs). The election to the 8 Naguru (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency was held on 11-9-1999. It is a reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribes. In the said election, the petitioner and the first respondent contested as Telugu Desam Party (TOP) and Congress-l Party candidates. The respondents 2 to 4 contested from other parties. The first respondent was declared elected on 6-10-1999. He does not belong to any of the Scheduled Tribes mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1976 relating to Andhra Pradesh. He belongs to 'Kshatriya' caste. He is claiming as 'Kondaraju1 and obtained false certificate of social status as 'Konda Dora' claiming that 'Kondaraju' and 'Konda Dora' are synonymous. The records pertaining to the family of the first respondent reveal that they belong to 'Kshatriya' caste, but not to Scheduled Tribe. With the help of the judgment of the High Court in E.P.No. 13 of 1983 he obtained a certificate of social status as Scheduled Tribe and is getting elected to Lok Sabha as well as Legislative Assembly. The petitioner came to know that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo No. 7725/ CV2/99 dated 10-6-1999 directing the Collector, Vizianagaram to initiate action against the first respondent in respect of the certificate of social status and it is pending enquiry. Since the first respondent does not belong to any of the Tribes specified in the Schedule under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, he is not entitled to be a candidate from 8 Naguru (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency and his nomination was improperly accepted. The Courts have no power to declare a synonymous of a Tribe to be of a Tribe, which is not included in the list of Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 by the President of India. The judgment of this Court in E.P. No. 13 of 1983 is null and void and cannot be looked into. The first respondent cannot be allowed to obtain a certificate of social status basing on a void judgment. The first respondent played fraud on the Constitution of India and deceived the voters of 8 Naguru (ST) Constituency knowing fully well that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. He gave an impression to the people that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and propagated to that effect. He is playing this game since 20 years and was duping the voters of 8 Naguru (ST) Assembly and Parvathipuram Parliamentary Constituencies. The first respondent by deception got his name accepted by the third respondent and succeeded in the election. Hence the petition.