CHADALAVADA SUBBA RAO Vs. KASU BRAHMANANDA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal against the order passed by the Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh dismissing, with costs of respondent No. 1, the election petition No. 195 of 1962 on the file of the Said Tribunal.

(2.) The appellant is an elector in Nadendla village. In the general election held on 19-2-1962 for return of a candidate from Phirangipuram constituency to the Legislative Assembly of the Andhra Pradesh State the only two contesting candidates found on the arena were respondent No. 1, Sri K. Brahmananda Reddy, and respondent No. 2, Sri Jagarlamudi Chandramouli. It was a contest close and keen. Respondent No. 1 contested on the ticket and program of the congress Organization and respondent No. 2 was a candidate set up by the Swatantra Party. Both of them had considerable influence over the constituency -- the former being the resident of Tubadu, one of the villages in the constituency and the latter being a member of the Kamma community which, it is said, had a stronghold in that area. Of the total votes polled, as many as 1,503 were rejected as invalid. The valid votes to the credit of the respondent No. 1 were 27,494 and those polled by respondent No. 2 were 26,991 thus showing a narrow margin of 503 votes between the two. The unsuccessful candidate, Respondent No. 2, did not choose to file any election petition. Instead, the appellant herein, a resident of Nadendla, a sympathizer of the Swatantra party, became the petitioner. He called in question the election of respondent No. 1 on several grounds. the sum and substance of his allegations is that the process of election in that constituency was permeated and polluted by an organized system of bribery and corrupt practices on an extensive scale practiced by or on behalf of respondent No. 1 with the natural result that the election of the said respondent, in no sense was a pure and free choice of the electors and therefore cannot be allowed to stand. To state in somewhat detail the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent abused his influence, official position and statutory powers for furthering his prospects of election. He was a minister in power holding the Finance Portfolio on the eve of election. His elder brother Sri Vengal Reddy, his own election agent, was then the President of Panchayat Samithi of Nadendla, most of the villages of which Samithi were included in the Phirangipuram constituency. The Executive Officer of the Samithi of i.e., the Block Development Officer was R. Narisimha Reddy, a gazetted officer of the Andhra Pradesh government. He was directly under the administrative control of Sri Vengal Reddy. It is said that it was the 1st respondent who got him appointed to the said office, and it was he who was responsible for his continuance in office there even though after the expiry of 3 years the department of Agriculture from which his services were loaned had promoted him and recalled him to his parent department and further what is more significant his partisan activities in the said area had given rise to several complaints of the public, who made regular applications to the minister-in-charge for his transfer. All this was for a set purpose and with a definite motive to utilise his services for promoting and procuring his election. The Block Development Officer and the Panchayat Samiti President, it is said, severally and jointly corruptly used their statutory powers, the Governmental funds and funds of Nadendla to vote for the 1st respondent. They hatched a plan and carried it out by bribing in various ways the voters of Nadendla and Yedlapadu. They used for the purpose in those villages specially the amounts allotted for Village Housing Project Scheme sponsored by the Central Government. The Central Government had laid down certain principles governing the allotment, distribution and repayment of the loans under the scheme. The State Government had also made rules to implement the scheme as contemplated by the Central government. It is contended that Sri Vengal Reddy, the election agent of respondent No. 1 and the Block Development Officer conspired to utilise these governmental funds for purposes of purchasing votes and in furtherance of this object cast to the winds the principle underlying the G. Os. In flagrant violation of the rules and regulations in this behalf, they freely and indiscriminately used these funds to advance their own scheme of procuring the election of the 1st respondent. Their modus operandi was this: They approached the Hrrijan voters of Yedlapadu and Nadendla with promises to get them free house sites and loans if they agreed in return to vote for the 1st respondent. As soon as they agreed the 1st respondents election agent Sri Vengal Reddy with the aid and instrumentality of D. Kotiah and Sheik Adam Saheb got for the purpose an area of land measuring acres. 2-70 cents belonging to Muthavarapu Veeriah transferred under a common sale deed dated 29/12/1961 in favour of 51 Harijan voters at Yedlapadu. The purchase money of Rs. 5000 in all was paid by Sri Vengal Reddy himself. There was paucity of funds in the village Housing Project Scheme. Nevertheless the election agent and the Block Development Officer in furtherance of their scheme unauthorisedly and without sanction diverted a sum of Rs. 65,000 which was in deposit with the Panchayat Samithi under other heads and utilised the same in advancing loans to the said voters. The rules for granting loans were not observed. The loans were paid without getting proper documents without any satisfaction of their solvency and in utter disregard of the fact that the safety of Government money was to be ensured at all costs under the clear provisions of the rules. Indeed it was urged at the time of arguments that the said loans were free gifts in disguise never intended to be collected back and the very fact that no attempt was ever afterwards made collecting any portion of the same in spite of expiry of the due period must bear standing testimony to their being free gifts. Similar is the case in Nadendla village where the election agent and the block development officer entered into agreement with the mala Christian leaders offering them free house sites and money for construction of houses in return for the promise of votes for the 1st respondent. It is said that as the leaders agreed, Sri Vengalareddy got the property of one Pullagara Hanumiah transferred in the names of several Christian voters. Thereafter the election agent and the block development officer advanced amounts in the same manner actually in furtherance of the election scheme though purporting to be in implementation of Village Housing Project Scheme. Nadendla and Yadlapadu alone were not the objects of such bounty. In Gurjavolu also the Harijan votes were given land free of cost and were promised besides amounts if they agreed to vote for the 1st respondent. The 1st respondents election agent, Vengal Reddy purchased land transferred under common sale deed dated 1 4/02/1962 in the name of different persons who are Harijans. In another village, Kanaparti, the election agent Sri Vengal Reddy, it is said, had entered into an arrangement with the Luthern Christians of that village offering to construct a Church in return for their undertaking to vote for the 1st respondent. Accordingly the construction of the Church was started in January, 1962 under the supervision of the President of the Village Panchayat Board and was completed some time later. The costs incurred, it is said, were paid by Sri Vengal Reddy. Similar arrangements are said to have been entered into with the Muslim voters in Vemulapadu village and Vankayalapadu village where the election agent and the Block Development Officer offered to construct a compound wall to Muslim burial ground in the first-mentioned village and a Masjid in the second-mentioned village free of cost in return of their promises to vote for the 1st respondent. In the villages of Komarapudi, Paladugu, Siripuram, Korrapadu, Mydavolu, Thimmapuram, Amensahebpalem and Appapuram money was freely distributed for purchase of votes. In the village of Ameensahebpalem, Vengal Reddy on 17/02/1962 at 10-30 A.M. distributed sums to several voters to induce them not to go to polling booth and vote. The 1st respondent, it is alleged, facilitated the work of the Panchayat Samithi President and the Block Development Officer by sanctioning the amounts time and again for the Village Housing Project Scheme. He besides using his position as Minister got appointed P. Venkateswarlu, Bajeeth Saheb and Sheik John Saheb in the Electricity department, one Alluri Brahmananda Rao of Siripuram as clerk in the Department of Commercial taxes at Guntur and also one V. Srinivasa Rao of Siripuram appointed in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics at Hyderabad inducing them, their dependents and relatives to vote for him. Similar measures were adopted by his (1st respondents) agent in collusion with the Block Development Officer by appointing Sheik Adam Saheb as road mastery and Sri V. Sivaramayya as teacher in Thimmapuram. All these corrupt practices, it is said, had their desired effect and even though most of the said voters were pledged to an in the heart of hearts wanted to vote for respondent No. 2, the free flow of money adversely affected their freedom of franchise and they were thus compelled to vote for respondent No. 1. It was further alleged that the 1st respondent and his election agent carried many voters in hired cars to the polling booths of Phiragipuram, Nadendla and Edugumpalem, that the 1st respondent by himself or through his election agent spent more than the maximum amount permitted in law and these amounts do not find place in the return of election expenses. Besides these various corrupt practices which fall under S. 123 (1), Clauses (a) (b) and Section 123 (5), (6) and (7) of the Representation of the People Act, which per se are sufficient to warrant a declaration that the election of the returning candidate is void, it is also alleged there were other corrupt practices and also irregularities committed in the process of election, which have materially affected the result of the election. There was presentation of dead voters and also there was plurality of votes polled. Invalid votes including the votes which violated the secrecy of ballots were wrongly counted. Apart from reception of invalid votes there was rejection of certain valid votes. For all these reasons it is alleged the election of the 1st respondent was void and that if the votes were correctly counted after discarding the invalid votes, respondent No. 2 would have been returned. With these allegations the petitioner has sought to set aside the election of the returned candidate and for a declaration that respondent No. 2 is the duly elected candidate.

(3.) The 2nd respondent filed his counter supporting the petition and adding to the list of corrupt practices enumerated by the petitioner. He raised further grounds in support of the petition.