K VENKATESWARLU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are some of the electors of Panidem Gram Panchayat, Sattenapalli Mandalam, Guntur District, and have come before this Court impugning the election to the office of sarpanch of the gram panchayat held on 27-6-1995 in which the respondent No.6 is said to have received more votes than respondent No.5 who polled the next highest. The basis for challenging the election is that even though all the four candidates who had filed nominations had withdrawn their candidature,yet the Election Officer, respondent No.4, erroneously treated the respondents 5 and 6 to have survived the withdrawals since they had filed two valid nominations each and according to him the withdrawals by the respondents 5 and 6 related to only one of the nominations of each one of them, for which they were entitled to contest the election on the basis of other nominations. Mr. M. Chandrasekhara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, urges the approach of the election officer to be against the law inasmuch as the withdrawal of the candidates related to their candidature as a whole and not only in respect of a particular nomination papers.

(2.) In pursuance of notice issued counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.4 as well as by respondents 5 and 6. The counter of respondent 4 discloses that in all four candidates, namely, 1. Panchumarti Vasudev Rao, 2. Sakamuri Venkata Rao, 3. Panchumarti Brahmaiah and 4. Nimmagadda Venkateswara Rao, had filed nominations but so far as No.1 and No.4, i.e., Panchumarti Vasudev Rao and Nimmagadda Venkateswara Rao are concerned, they had filed two nominations each. There were thus six nomination papers before the Election Officer. As all the six were valid, he published the listof validly nominated candidates on 14-6-1995 showing all the four as validly nominated but later on all the four filed withdrawals in Form 6 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules 1994, issued in G.O.Ms. No.755, Panchayat Raj. Rural Development and Relief (MDL-1) Department, dated 30-11-1994 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) in respect of their nominations. The respondent No.4 treated respondents 5 and 6 to have each withdrawn only one of their nominations, and treating their other nominations as subsisting, allowed them to contest the election in which respondent No.6 is said to have polled more votes than respondent No.5.

(3.) Under Section 268 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 the Government has the power to frame Rules inter alia regarding conduct of elections. In pursuance of the power, the Rules. Rule 10 of the Rules deals with withdrawal of candidature saying that any candidate may withdraw his candidature by notice in Form 6 signed by him and delivered to the Election Officer. The rule succeeds Rule 9 relating to the scrutiny of nomination papers providing in sub-rule (5), for publication by the Election Officer of a list of validly nominated candidates and affixture of it to the notice board in Election Officer's Office in Form 5(2). After the power of withdrawal of the candidature has been exercised by the candidates as in Rule 10, Rule 11 provides for publication of the list of contesting candidates.That stage of theelection process hence necessarily comes after the affixture of the list of validly nominated candidates under Rule 9(5) and withdrawals effected thereafter. Rule 11(1) specifically states that the list of validly nominated candidates is to be in Form 8 and is to consist of persons whose nominations have not been rejec ted and who have not withdrawn their candidature. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 p rovides that if after such publication in Form 8 poll becomes necessary, symbols are to be assigned. A combined reading of the three rules, 9, 10 and 11, hence unmistakably shows that the withdrawal by a candidate relates not to any one of his nominations but to his candidature as a whole and that cnce the withdrawal option is exercised, the list of valid nominations are to be published without the names of the candidates who have withdrawn. If the Election Officer finds that there is only one validly nominated candidate, thene would not be any question of allotment of symbols under Rule 11(3) as no poll would be necessary and the single candidate is to be declared unanimously elected. The matter is clear from the wordings of Rules 10 and 11 itself which only refer to withdrawal of candidature. Even further, Form 6 in which the with drawal is made is explicit saying in the notice purpor ted to be given to the Electior i Officer that "I.............., a candidate validly nominated at the above election do hereby give notice that I withdraw my candidatune. The signed forms have b 2en also produced before us, and show the withdrawals to be in the same form. There hence cannot be any mistake nor any interpi -eta don made that when a ca ndidate exercises the option to withdraw, the exercise is in respect of any one of the nominations only. Such a meaning goes against the provisions of the rule and the form and the entire scheme of the election. There is no warrant for it. The stand adopted by the Election Officer is also patently without any rational meaning as if a candidate has filed more than one valid nominations, there could not be any reason why he would withdraw only one of his nominations.