M NARASAPPA Vs. M KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Election Petition was filed under sec. 80 of the Represention of People Act, 43 of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) challenging the election of the 1st respondent M. Krishna Reddy to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Jadcherla Constituency No. 192 held on 5-1-1983.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that the petitioner and the 1st respondent the said M. Krishna Reddy are the candidates for the election for the above Constitue- ncy and the election progremme was fixed under the Act as per the Notification issued on 4 12-1982. The last date for nomination is 11-12-82 and the scrutiny was fixed on 13 12-1982. The last date for withrawal is 15-12-82 and the date of polling is 5-1-1983. At the time of the scrutiny the petitioner raised an objection that the 1st respondent was disqualified to contest the election as he was a Govt. servant dismissed for corruption as per G. O. Mis. No. 542 (Food & Agriculture Depeartment) dated 20-9-79 and hence he cannot contest the election as per the provisions of section 9 of the Act. The Returning Officer overruled the said objection and accepted the nomination of the 1st respondent. At the election the 1st respondent obtained 31,803 votes, the petitioner got only 25985 votes whereas respondents 2 and 3 got 1593 and 2096 votes respectively, and hence the 1st respondent was declared duly elected and under these circumstances the petitioner claims that the election of the 1st respondent is liable to be declared as void under section 100 (1) (a) of the Act as the 1st respondent is disqualified to con- test the election. It is also urged that the election is materially affected and the same is liable to be declared void under sec. 100 (1) (d) (i) and (iv) of the Act.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed a written statement contending that he was not dismissed from service but his services were terminated and the said termination does not come within the purview of sec. 9 of the Act. It is also averred the ground of termination is not corruption or disloyalty and hence there is no disqualification on that ground and also the alleged disqualification has not materially affected the election under sec. 100 (1) (d) (i) and (iv) of the Act.