MOHD ALI SHABBIR Vs. YOUSUF ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner filed this petition questioning the election of the first respondent to Kamareddy Assembly Constituency, which was held during the A.P. General Election in 1999.

(2.) The averments, in brief, in the petition, are during the general election for A.P. Legislative Assembly held in 1999, petitioner contested the election for 232 Kamareddy Assembly Constituency on behalf of the Indian National Congress, first respondent contested the same on behalf of Telugu Desham Party, second respondent on behalf of Bahujan Samaj Party, third and fourth respondents on behalf of other political parties and respondents 5 and 6 as independent candidates. Since first respondent has polled 63,949 votes as against 60,178 votes polled by the petitioner, he was declared elected in view of the narrow margin of 3,771 votes polled by him by indulging in corrupt practices as a candidate set up by the ruling Telugu Desham Party, which was in power by the time of 1999 General Election, and which entered into a seat adjustment agreement with Bharatiya Janata Party to defeat the Indian National Congress Party. When the Bharatiya Janata Party was ruling U. P. State, Babri Masjid was demolished on 6-12-1992, antoganising the muslim community and so muslims were against Bharatiya Janata Party, and in view of the seat adjustment between it and the Telugu Desham Party, they were favouring the Indian National Congress party. Therefore, Telugu Desham Party, with a view to woo the Muslim voters in Andhra Pradesh took several measures to appease Muslims by some schemes including giving grants for construction and reconstruction of mosques etc. through the A.P. Wakf Board. First respondent, who is appointed as Chairman of A.P. State Wakf Board in 1996 for a period of five years, by making use of his office as the Chairman of that Board started utilizing the funds of more than three and half crore rupees granted by the Government, by making use of G.O.Ms. No. 25 (Minorities Welfare) dated 16-2-1996, as per which amount not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- can be granted for repairs and renovation of mosques etc.. and an amount up to Rs. 25,000/- for fresh construction Taking advantage of the said G.O., though first respondent is not authorised under the said G.O. to sign the cheques issued for the amount sanctioned thereunder first respondent himself signed the cheques huge amounts by way of cheque for Rs. 25,000/- each dated 3-7-1999, were distributed to several institutions in the constituency for renovations/ repairs etc. in some cases even without application, or by calling for applications, and got several of those cheques distributed on 17-9-1999 i.e., one day prior to the elections through his supporters Yousuf Bin Sayeed and M.A. Hameed at the mosques at Yelapakonda, Lacchapet, Machareddy, Annavam Kamareddy, Domakonda, Jangampally, Basvapur and Peda Mallareddy and through Habeeb Bin Sayeed and Mohd. Faizuddin as another batch and got made an announcement in the mosques that as he sent those amounts they should support his candidature. He came to know about those facts after the election through his friends and through paper publication of such news item. Since first respondent indulged in corrupt practice of getting distributed cheques for repairs etc. to the religious institutions by luring the voters to vote in his favour he won the election by a narrow margin. As such distribution of cheques had the effect of swaying away some voters in his favour the election of the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The averment, in brief, in the written statement of the first respondent, is that neither Habib Bin Sayeed nor Mohd Faizuddin nor Yousuf Bin Sayeed nor M.A. Hameed are his followers, and that he did not get distributed any cheques through them one day prior to the election and the allegation that he made a request for announcement in the mosques before the prayers to the members that assembled in the mosques to cast their vote in his favour as the sanctioned money to those institutions is not correct and since he did not indulge in any corrupt practice or bribery, petitioner is not entitled to any relief because by the date of issuance of cheques i.e. 3-7-1999 he did not even contemplate to contest the election.