THELLAKULA JALAYYA Vs. NAMANA VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Election Commissioner, Guntur, setting aside the election of the petitioner as councillor to Ward No. 23 of the Guntur Municipality and declaring the first respondent duly elected in his stead.

(2.) The petitioner, 1st respondent, V. Narasimha Rao and K. Venkatramiah, filed nominations as candidates for election as Councillors for Ward No. 23 of the Guntur Municipality. The scrutiny of nominations took place on 4th November, 1952.. V. Narasimha Rao objected to the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that he was in arrears of tax due to the Municipality by the date of the nomination. The Election Commissioner overruled the objection of Narasimha Rao and declared petitioner's nomination as valid. Thereafter, V. Narasimha Rao and K. Venkatramiah withdrew their nominations leaving the petitioner and the 1st respondent in the field. At the elections, the petitioner got 668 votes and the 1st respondent secured only 160 votes and the petitioner was duly declared as the successful candidate by the Returning Officer. The 1st respondent filed O.P. No. 126 of 1952 before the Election Commissioner, Guntur, seeking to set aside the election of the petitioner on various grounds. The following points raised before the Commissioner reflect the contentions of the parties.

(3.) The Commissioner held against the petitioner on points 2, 3 and 4 and nothing now turns upon the questions covered by those points. On point I he held, on a consideration of the entire evidence that the petitioner and one Karamsetti Sambabasivarao were partners of two firms styled K. Subbayya Son Rice Factory and K. Sambasivarao and Partners and that the said two firms were in arrears of profession tax and property tax to the Municipality on the date when the nominations were filed. He further held that notices for payment of arrears were served on one of the partners K. Sambasivarao and that the arrears were not paid by the time of the nominations. On those findings, he held that the petitioner was disqualified to stand for election under section 49 (2) of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. Under points 6 and 7, he set aside the election of the petitioner and declared the 1st respondent duly elected as Municipal Councillor for Ward No. 23 on the ground that there was no other candidate. The aforesaid petition was filed to quash that order.