PYNDAH VENKATANARAYANA Vs. G V SUDHAKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the order of the Election Tribunal, Hyderabad dismissing the Election Petition No. 357/1962 filed by the appellant questioning the election of the 2nd respondent herein (S. Malkonda Reddy) and praying that the election of respondents 1, 2 or any other respondent be declared void and the appellant be declared duly elected to one of the ten seats of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council.

(2.) The appellant was one of the 13 candidates duly nominated to contest for one of the ten seats in the biennial election to the Andhra Pradesh Council by the members of the legislative Assembly which was held on 25-6-1962. The election to these seats was based on the principle of proportional representation by a single transferable vote. The process involved is elaborate and the task of the Returning Officer particularly is rather arduous, the principle underling the system being that it is not sufficient that every citizen should have the vote but he should also be assured of the greatest possible freedom and effectiveness in its use. This system gives ample scope to the electors to take part as freely and fully as possible in the selection of their own representatives by choosing between candidates on personal as well as party grounds with the assurance that all or nearly all the votes cast by them are made effective by being passed on as may be necessary from the candidate they have marked "1" to the candidate they have marked "2" and so on. It is therefore legitimate to expect that the total result will reflect the opinion of all or nearly all the voters. One characteristic feature of this system is that in this form of representation the successful candidate is elected not b a majority of votes but by a quota that quota being one vote more than the number obtained by dividing the total number of valid votes by one more than the number of seats to be filled. This is popularly known as Droop quota. The detailed procedure to be followed in this behalf has been laid down in Rr. 76 to 83 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Accordingly, the Returning Officer after scrutiny and arrangement of valid ballot papers in parcels as per rules 73 and 74 counted and recorded the valid votes which totaled to 290, their paper value according to the rules being 2900. He then determined the requisite quota for election as 2637. He found that seven of the candidates in the very first count had secured the requisite quota and more. They were declared elected. As the votes in excess of their quota could not be wasted but had to be transferred to the continuing candidated according to the next available preference as recorded on the ballot papers, he then considered the question of transfer of surplus votes. Largest surplus secured by a candidate had to be dealt with first. As three successful candidates had to their credit the largest equal surplus, the order in which this was to be dealt with was determined by lot. Accordingly he first death with Brahmavyas (Respondent No. 3) surplus votes, then Pallam Rajus (since dead) and then Abu Yusufs (respondent No. 4). Thereafter, he dealt with the other surplus in the order of magnitude. Of course lots had to be cast in relation to Goutam Venkatasetty also who had obtained equal points i.e., 2700. As a result of the transfer of surplus votes, Bendi Kurmana got elected in the second count itself as he shot past the required quota. His surplus votes were distributed on the 9th count amongst the continuing candidates. At this stage, it appeared from the position of the value of votes to the credit of each continuing candidate that Kaloji Nrayanarao (respondent No. 10) had no chance of election as they were lowest on the poll. Therefore, they were excluded as per the rules and their votes were distributed among the continuing candidates, as a result of which Sudhakararao was declared elected. The only candidates then left in the field were Malkonda Reddy and the appellant. There was only one seat to be filled in. The appellant had 2434 points whereas the 2nd respondent had secured 2,555 points. Of course none of them had requisite quota. So the remaining one seat had to go to the candidate who had obtained majority of votes Respondent NO. 2 as between the remaining contestants was such a candidate. He was therefore, declared elected and the appellant was declared not elected. Dissatisfied with the way in which election was declared, the appellant filed his election petition praying that the election of respondents 1 and 2 or other respondents be declared void and he be declared duly elected. He also prayed for a fresh scrutiny and recount of the ballot papers.

(3.) The main grounds on which these requests were made were that the Returning Officer had committed several irregularities and mistakes in scrutiny counting and in the distribution of surplus votes. His complaint was that no adequate opportunity was given to the candidates or their agents to see the ballot papers, that the classification of valid and invalid votes was not rightly done. Most of the ballot papers which ought to have been declared invalid were wrongly received as valid. There were other irregularities besides. It was averred that consequently the result of the election was materially affected. He complained also of corrupt practice committed at the election by the candidate S. Malkonda Reddy in that the latter had actively canvassed within the prohibited area of the polling booth contravening the provisions of section 130 of the Representation of the people Act.