PUNNAM ARUNA Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court issued Rule Nisi on 22.8.2006 and an order of status quo made for limited period is being continued from time to time. The counter affidavit is filed on behalf of R.4. The counsel on record requested for the final disposal of the writ petition.

(2.) Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, ordering of re-poll is without authority and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel also would submit that though election O.P.No.ll of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Parkal already was filed, the question raised in the present writ petition cannot be gone into in the said election O.P., and hence, the present writ petition to be decided on merits. The learned counsel also pointed out that oral request for the purpose of recounting is not contemplated and apart from the same there are several illegalities and when the statue ordains a particular thing to be done in a particular fashion, the same may have to be done as per the provisions of the statute or the relevant statutory rules. Hence, the counsel would contend that the writ petition to be allowed as prayed for. The learned counsel also placed reliance on several decisions to substantiate his contention.

(3.) Per contra, Sri V.V.Prabhakar Rao, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that as far as ordering of re-poll by the second respondent, the District Election Authority is concerned in the light of Section 232 and 210 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the said power had been exercised in accordance with law and hence, it cannot be said that the first respondent-State Election Commission had no authority to delegate and further, it cannot be said that the second respondent-District Election Authority has no power or authority to make such orders. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would submit that if the request for recount to be said to be not in accordance with the rules or any contravention of the Rules, the said aspect also can be well agitated in the election O.P., which had been already filed. Even otherwise, the counsel would submit that in the light of Article 243E of the Constitution of India, the office of the Sarpanch cannot be kept vacant and by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the oath was not administered to the present elected sarpanch. The teamed counsel also had taken this Court through certain decisions to substantiate his contention. Sri Pankaj Reddy, the learned counsel representing R-6, virtually adopted the arguments advanced by Sri V.V.Prabhakar Rao, the learned Standing Counsel representing R.1 to R.4 and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the concerned election tribunal and having approached the concerned election tribunal, the petitioner cannot be permitted to prosecute simultaneous remedies. At any rate, the counsel would submit that in the light of the plenary powers of the first respondent-State Election Commission and also in the light of the Sections 210 and 232 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act 1994, it cannot be said that the order of re-poll made by the District Election Authority, the second respondent is wholly without jurisdiction. Heard the counsel on record.