SARDAR ALI KHAN REDDIGARI KAMI REDDY ALIAS RAMIREDDY UDDANDAPURAM VILLAGE Vs. TIRAMALA REDDY UDDANDAPURAM VILLAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Wiit Petition No. 9586/1982. That Writ Petition was filed by the Sarpanch, Uddandapuram Gram Panchayat whose election was set aside in O.P.No. 8 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsiff, Alampur. The appellant, and the 1st Respondent had filed nominations for election to the office of the Sarpanch of that Gram Panchayat. First respondent is an elector in Ward No. 2 of the Gram Panchayat, and his proposer was an elector in Ward No. 3. At the scrutiny of the nomina-; tiqns, the Election Officer rejected the nomination of the 1st respondent: under Rule 8 (2) (ii) of the Grain Panchayat Conduct of Election Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) being of the view that the proposer of a candidate, who contests for the office of the Sarpanch, should be an elector, from the same ward in which candidate is registered as an elector. After the rejection of the first respondent's nomination, only the appellant was left in the field, and he was declared elected.

(2.) The short question for consideration before the learned single Judge and now before us in this appeal is whether the rejection of tht nomination paper of the first respondent by the Election Officer was valid. That depends upon the interpretation of the Note to Rule 4 (2) anil Rule 8 (2) (ii) of the Rules. Rule 4 in so far as it is relevant for thej present purpose, reads as follows: Nomination of Candidates Section 4 (1):The nomination of every candidate for electioi either as member or Sarpanch shall be made in Form-11, (2) Every nomination paper shall be signed by an elector as proposer and the candidate shall sign a declaration on it expressing h willingness to stand for the election. No elector shall sign as propose for more than one candidate.

(3.) It is argued by Mr. R.V. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, that unless the candidate contesting for the office of the Sarpanch is proposed by an elector registered in the same ward, as thai of the candidate himself, such nomination of such candidate, is not a valid nomination, aud must be rejected under Rule 8 (2) (ii), Rule 8 (2) (ii) reads as follows : "Scrutiny of Nomination Papers" Section 8 (1):On the date appointed for the scrutiny of nominal tions, the candidate, the proposer of each candidate and one other person duly authorised in writing by each candidate, and no other persos may attend at such time and place as maybe specified under Rule I The election officer may however admit such other persons as he ihinW fit to assist him. The election officer shall give such persons all reasons*; ble facilities to examine the nomination papers of all candidates, whidj have been received as aforesaid. (2) The election officer shall then examine the nomination papei and shall decide all objections which maybe made at the time of aaf nomination and may either on such objection or on his own motion aW Rama Reddy vs. Tirumala Reddy (K.. Madhava Reddy, CJ) 99 such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds:- (i) ............ (ii) that the proposer is a person whose name is not registered on the electoral roll for that ward: It may be noticed at this stage that under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Amendment Act 46 of 1976, which came into force on 15-6-77, a Sarpanch is required to be elected, by all the voters of the Gram Panchayat. The relevant portion of Section 12 as amended under the said amendment Act, in so far as, it is relevant for the present purpose, reads as follows Section 12: