PYUDAH VENKATANARAYANA Vs. G V SUDHAKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the order of the Election Tribunal, hyderabad dismissing the Election Petition No. 357 of 1962 filed by the appellant questioning the election of the 2nd respondent herein (S. Malkonda Reddy) and praying that the election of respondents 1, 2 or any other respondent be declared void and the appellant be declared duly elected to one of the ten seats of the Andhra pradesh Legislative Council.

(2.) The appellant was one of the 13 candidates duly nominated to contest for one of the ten seats in the biennial election to the Andhra Pradesh Council by the members of the Legislative Assembly which was held on 25th June, 1962. The election to these seats was based on the principle of proportional representation by a single transferable vote The process involved is elaborate and the task of the Returning officer particularly is rather arduous, the principle underlying the system being that it is not sufficient that every citizen should have the vote but he should also be assured of the greatest possible freedom and effectiveness in its use. This system gives ample scope to the electors to take part as freely and fully as possible in the selection of their own representatives by choosing between candidates on personal as well as party grounds with the assurance that all or nearly all the votes cast by them are made effective by being passed on as may be necessary from the candidate they have marked "1" to the candidate they have marked 2" and so on It is therefore legitimate to expect that the total result will reflect the opinion of all or nearly all the voters. One characteristic eature of this system is that in this form of representation the successful candidate is elected not by a majority of votes but bv a auota that quota being one vote more than the number obtained by dividing the total number of valid votes by one more than the number of seats to be filled.

(3.) This is popularly known as Droop quota. The detailed procedure to be followed in this behalf has been laid down in rules 76 to 83 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 Accordingly the Returning Officer after scrutiny and arrangement of valid ballot papers in parcels as per rules 73 and 74 counted and recorded the valid votes which totalled to 290, their paper value according to the rules being 2,900. He then determined the requisite quota for election as 2637. He found that seven of the ndidates in the very first count had secured the requisite quota and more. They were declared elected. As the votes in excess of their quota could not be wasted but had to be transferred to the continuing candidates according to the next available preference as recorded on the ballot papers, he then considered the question of transfer of surplus votes. Largest surplus secured by a candidate had to be dealt with first As three successful candidates had to their credit the largest equal surplus the order in which this was to be dealt with was determined by lot. Accordingly he first dealt with Brahmayya's (respondent No. 3) surplus votes, then palam Raju's (since dead) and then Abu Yusuf's (respondent No. 4). Thereafter, he dealt with the other surpluses in the order of magnitude. Of course lots had to be cast in relation to Goutam and Venkatasetty also who had obtained equal point i,e, 2700 As a result of the transfer of surplus votes, Bendi Kurmannagot elected in the second count itself as he shot past the required quota. His surplus votes were distributed on the 9th count amongst the continuing candidates. At this stage it appeared from the position of the value of votes to the credit of each countinuing candidate that Kaloji Narayanarao (respondent No. 9) and Page Pulla reddy (respondent No. 10) had no chance of election as they were lowest on the poll Therefore they were excluded as per the rules and their votes were distributed among the continuing candidates, as a result of which Sudhakararao was declared elected.