CHINA NARASAPPA Vs. VENKATA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions arise under the same circumstances and raise common questions of law, therefore they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment.

(2.) To appreciate the questions involved in these cases we shall refer to the facts stated in W.P.No.24086 of 1995.

(3.) Consequent upon the declaration of the Government to hold elections for the Gram Panchayats in the State, elections to the post of Sarpanch of Mittanandhimalla Gram Panchayat were held on 3-7-1995. The petitioner and the fourth respondent contested for the said post Counting of the votes was done on the same day, at about 4-30p.m. by the Election Officer, the first respondent. The result of the counting was made known to the parties on making entries in Form-17 which shows that the petitioner secured 329 votes; and the fourth respondent secured 328 votes; 24 votes were found to be invalid and were rejected. A batch of Writ Petitions was pending in this Court wherein declaration of results of elections to the Gram Panchayats, was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court. However, after disposal of the batch of Writ Petitions appeals were filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was pleased to direct announcement of results of all the electionsto the Gram Panchayats in the State. It appears, the fourth respondent had filed an application for recounting of votes. The Election Officer No.II of Mittanandhimalla Gram Panchayat, the second respondent, issued a notice dated 20-10-1995 that the votes would be recounted on 21-10-1995 as per the instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanapet, the third respondent. The petitioner alleges that at the instance of the local M.L.A. belonging to the ruling party the recounting was ordered. The result of the recounting of votes was that the petitioner got 326 votes whereas the fourth respondent got 327 votes. The rejected votes went up from 24 to 28. Accordingly, the results of the election were declared. The petitiners says that the third respondent has no power either under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act (for short "the Act") or under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections of Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats, Members of Mandal Parishadsand Members of Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1994(for short "the Rules") to order recounting, as such the recounting conducted pursuant to the order of the third respondent and the consequent declaration of the result is illegal and without jurisdiction. He, therefore, prayed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in issuing the order to recount the votes and the consequential recounting and the declaration of the result as illegal and arbitrary and for a further declaration that the petitioner was duly elected Sarpanch of the above said Gram Panchayat.