CHALLA SWAROOPA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, elected as the Sarpanch of Erlapudi Gram Panchayat of Khammam District, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Election Tribunal, in I.A. No.840 of 2013 in the Election O.P. No.16 of 2013 dated 25.02.2014, whereby recounting of votes was directed; and respondents 1, 4 to 6 were called upon to produce the election material before it for recounting in open Court on 15.03.2014 at 11.00 A.M.

(2.) FACTS , to the extent necessary, are that elections to the post of Sarpanch of Erlapudi Gram Panchayat were held on 27.07.2013. In the first counting of votes, the petitioner got six votes more than the 6th respondent, with 82 votes treated as invalid. In the second round of counting both the petitioner and the 6th respondent were tied with an equal number of votes, and the invalid votes were held to have increased to 87 and, on a further recount, the petitioner was declared elected as the Sarpanch holding that he had secured two more votes than the 6th respondent. However the total number of invalid votes, in the third round of counting, increased to 99. Aggrieved thereby the 6th respondent filed Election O.P. No.16 of 2013 on the file of the Election Tribunal (Principal Junior Civil Judge) at Khammam on 19.08.2013 seeking an order for recounting of votes; to declare the petitioner 's election as Sarpanch as null and void; and he be declared as the successful candidate in the election. The 6th respondent filed I.A. No.840 of 2013 in E.O.P.No.16 of 2013, on the same day i.e., 19.08.2013, seeking an interim order for recounting of votes. Counter -affidavits were filed thereto by the petitioner, the Returning Officer, and the Deputy District Election Authority (Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer). The Election Tribunal, by its order dated 25.02.2014, allowed the said I.A and directed recounting of votes. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ON the other hand Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, Learned Counsel for the 6th respondent, would submit that Rules 7 and 12(d)(iii) and (iv) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter called the ''1995 Rules '') have been violated; the procedure prescribed under Rules 52 and 58 of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter called the ''2006 Rules '') were not followed; Rules 52(2) and 58(3) of the 2006 Rules are mandatory; an Election dispute cannot be adjudicated on mere technicalities; election petitions must be adjudicated early as any delay would result in the democratic rights of the candidates being violated; the only legal issue, which arises for consideration in the present Election O.P, is regarding violation of the Rules; the official respondents have not denied, in their counter -affidavits, that the said Rule has been violated; when there is no dispute on a question of law or of a fact, it is not necessary that a trial should be conducted; a third count of votes is not permissible in view of Rule 60(5); when the votes obtained by two rival contestants are equal, Rule 61 contemplates a lottery to decide who should be declared elected; as there is no dispute that Rules 61 and 60(5) have been violated, the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order; and it is evident, from para 9 of the order of the Tribunal, that it does not suffer from an error of law apparent on the face of the record warranting a writ of certiorari being issued. Learned Counsel would rely on Kattinokkula Murali Krishna3; Kagitha Bhanu2; Kailash v. Nanhku (2005(3) ALD 102 (SC)); and Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477).