T. NARASIMHULU Vs. G. LAXMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case involves a matter of moment to the public and of general interest. The question involved is what is the legal effect and amplitude of the regulatory rule, viz. Rule 5 of the Rules for the Conduct of Election of Members. Sarpanchas and Upa -Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats framed by the Government under section 217(2)(i) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules.) The relevant facts and circumstances giving rise to the question may now be noticed.

(2.) IN the election held on 31 -5 -1981, a total number of 456 votes were polled; out of these polled votes 222 votes were polled in favour of Gorti Lakshmaiah while 224 votes were polled in favour of Thammineni Narasimhulu. 10 votes are declared invalid. The Returning Officer declared the candidate Thammineni Narasimhulu as duly elected Sarpanch. Gorti lakshmaiah being dissatisfied with the decision of the Returning Officer filed the election petition O.P. No. 3 of 1981 before the District Munsif and Election Tribunal, Tadipatri. The election was challenged by Gorti Lakshmaiah mainly on the ground that the nomination of Thammineni Narasimhulu was improperly directed to be accepted by the appellate authority and that two persons by name Sanjappa and Salamma had voted twice taking advantage of the double entry of their names in the voter' List. The petition was resisted by the elected candidate Thammineni Narasimhulu. According to him he was a permanent resident of Pedda Mallepalli Gram Panchayat, that his name was properly and correctly enumerated as Thammineni Narasimhulu in the manuscript of the electoral roll, but his name was wrongly printed due to printers' error at the time of printing the electoral roll. Therefore the appellate authority, he maintained rightly set right the mistake committed by the Election Officer in rejecting the nomination for the post of Sarpanch. He further pleaded that the appellate authority rightly compared the printed electoral roll with the manuscript copy of the electoral roll and after hearing both the sides came to the conclusion that his name had been wrongly printed in the electoral roll as Thammineni Aswarthamaiah, son of Narasimhulu which was obviously a printers' mistake which could be rightly rectified under Rule 5(2) of the Rules.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif on a close scrutiny and careful evolution of the entire evidence in the case found that the conclusion of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the name of the respondent was wrongly printed as Thammineni Aswarthamaiah in the electoral roll though his name was correctly written as Thammineni Nara simhulu son of Narasimhulu in the manuscript copy of the electoral roll was correct and hence the Revenue Divisional Officer rightly held that there was a printers' mistake in publishing the name of Thammineni Narasimhulu and the rejection of his nomination paper was improper. He also held that the petitioner produced no evidence to show that the name of Thammineni Narasimhulu in the manuscript copy was wrongly entered and that he was not a resident of Padda Mallepalli village. The learned District Munsif also held that two persons by name Sanjappa and Salamma had not voted twice, that Sanjappa cast his vote only once and that there was no evidence to establish that Salamma herself voted twice in the VI Ward and VIII Ward. Consequently, the election petition was dismissed The petitioner then filed the writ petition invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order of the District Munsif -cum -Election Tribunal under the Gram Panchayats Act and further seeking a declaration to declare him as duly elected Sarpanch of the Pedda Mallepalli Gram Panchayat.