P VENKATESWARLU Vs. JAMPANI RAGHAVAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first point that calls for decision in this Writ Petition is whether the Election Tribunal was right in holding that three ballot papers marked as Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4, had been improperly rejected by the Election Officer. At the election for Thimmapuram Gram Panchayat, which was held on 29th May, 1964, the writ petitioner P. Venkateswarlu, and the first respondent Jampani Raghavaiah, contested for membership of the second ward. After the poll and as a result of the counting, the Election Officer found that the petitioner had secured '82 votes while the first respondent had secured 79 votes. But this result was arrived at by the Election Officer rejecting some votes including the three ballot papers marked as Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4, which according to the first respondent, were cast in his favour. On the above reckoning, the Election Officer declared that the writ petitioner was duly elected to that ward. Issue No. 2 in the election petition was whether the rejection of four votes polled in favour of Jamjpani Raghavaiah were invalid. It may be mentioned here that not only these three ballot papers, Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4 but also another ballot paper, Exhibit A-1, had been rejected by the Election Officer.

(2.) This question was essentially one of fact to be determined on an appreciation of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has discussed this question in paragraph 6 of its order and it reads as follows :

(3.) It will be seen that while the Tribunal was of the view that as regards one of the ballot papers, viz., Exhibit A-1, it was unable to determine for which of the two candidates the voter had intended to vote because there were three marks in three places on the ballot paper, so far as the other ballot papers, Exhibits A-2, A-3 and A-4 were concerned, it was definitely of the view that despite some markings on the ballot papers, which were apparently the result of careless handling by illiterate voters, there was clear indication that the three votes in those three ballot papers had been cast in favour of the first respondent. Some of the marks found on these ballot papers which bear faint traces of finger-prints, were not, in the opinion of the Tribunal, such as to render identification of the voters possible. On these findings, the Tribunal reached in conclusion that these three ballot papers had been improperly rejected by the Election Officer, and since these three votes had been cast in favdur of the first respondent, they must be added to the 79 votes secured by him, in which case the first respondent would also get 82 votes as against the 82 votes secured by the writ petitioner. In that situation, the Tribunal was of the view that a fresh election should be ordered and it did so.