P RAJYA LAKSHMI Vs. A VENKATA SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner asks for a writ of Certiorori to quash the order paised on 29/6/1965 by the second respondent setting aside the election of the petitioner as a member of the Yelavarru Gram Panchayat in Guntur District.

(2.) The contestants in the election were the petitioner and the first respondent Both of them contested from Constituency No. 3 of Yelavarru village. The total number of votes polled was 146. One of them was rejected as invalid. Out of the remaining 145 votes, the petitioner polled 73 and the first respondent polled 72. The first respondent thereafter moved the second respondent under the Rules made under Sec. 2(17)(2) of the Gram Panchayats Act for setting aside the election of the petitioner. The ground on which the election petition was rested was that one of the voters, Mursharamma by name, was a voter in Constituency No. 3 of Yelavarru Panchayat and also in one of the constituencies in Bodapadu Panchayat. The allegation was that she had cast her vote in the election which was previously held on 29/5/1964 to the Bodapadu Panchayat and that she-subsequently cast her vote on 2/6/1964 in respect of Constituency No. 3 of Yelavarru Panchayat also. Because she voted twice in the elections for two different Panchayats, it was claimed that both the votes cast by her had become invalid. As she had cast her vote in favour of the petitioner, it was contended that that vote should be eschewed from consideration. The second respondent-District Munsiff upheld this contention and said that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the vote cast by Muraharamma. The result of this decision was that the petitioner as well as the first respondent got 72 votes each. Thus, there was a tie. As there was no provision in the Act for the giving of a casting vote in case of a tie like this, the second respondent set aside the election and directed a fresh election to be held. It is against this decision passed by the second respondent on 29/6/1965 that the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner's learned Counel vigorously contends that the decision of the second respondent was based upon a palpable misapprehension of the import and significance of S. 14(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act (Act No. 2 of 1964). The first respondent, on the other hand, contends through his Counsel that the decision of the second respondent has given effect to the true interpretation of S. 14(6) of the Gram Panchayats Act. Thus, the controversy between the parties turns round the true import and meaning of S. 14(6) of the Act.

(3.) Before dealing with this provision, it is useful to set out the other provisions of the Gram Panchayats Act which will form a background of the correct interpretation of S. 14(6). Sec. 3 states that the Commissioner may, by notification, and in accordance with the rules made by the Government in this behalf, declare any revenue village or part thereof or any part of a revenue taluk to be a village for the purpose of this Act and specify the name of that village. The net of the Sec. is not relevant. Sec. 4(1) reads:--