M THIPPE SWAMY Vs. L LALITHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the general election held in the month of April 2004, the petitioner and the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") filed their nominations for 141 Palamaner (SC) Assembly Constituency of Andhra Pradesh. While the petitioner contested on behalf of the Indian National Congress, the respondent represented the Telugu Desam Party. After following the notified schedule in the matter of filing, scrutiny and withdrawal of nominations, polling was held to the constituency on 26.4.2004. The petitioner secured 67,124 votes, whereas the respondent got 67,861 votes. An independent candidate secured 3,029 votes. The respondent was declared as elected.

(2.) The petitioner filed this Election Petition challenging the election of the respondent. He seeks declaration to the effect that the election of the respondent as Member of the Legislative Assembly representing 141 Palamaner (SC) Assembly Constituency is void. The petitioner states that the respondent is a bom Christian, professing Christianity and thereby, she was not eligible and qualified, to contest as a candidate, against a vacancy, reserved for Scheduled Caste. In the Election Petition as well as the supporting affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the respondent belongs to 'Adi Andhra Christian' community and her parents are Christians. It is alleged that in the records of the educational institutions, where the respondent studied, she was described as 'Christian', Petitioner had also pleaded that the respondent, her sister and brothers were married to Christian spouses, as per Christian rites and that she continues to profess, Christianity. It was further alleged that the respondent attends Church at Nalagamapalli Village and makes regular contributions, for the up keep of the Church. The petitioner had enclosed certain annexures to the Election Petition. They include the extracts from the registers of educational institutions, where the respondent had studied.

(3.) In the 5th Paragraph of the Election Petition as well as in the affidavit, it was alleged that that the respondent might have manipulated the authorities, and played fraud, in obtaining the certificate to the effect that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. It was also alleged that the certificate might have been issued by the authorities, as she was a candidate sponsored by the ruling party, at the relevant point of time. The respondent filed EA. No. 1092 of 2004 with a prayer, to reject the Election Petition and E.A No. 1093 of 2004, to strike off the pleadings in certain paragraphs. The petitioner filed counter-affidavit in the said applications. Through an order, dated 1.12.2004, this Court partly allowed E.A. No. 1093 of 2004 and struck off certain sentences in Paragraph 5, the gist of which is indicated above. Thereafter, the respondent filed her written statement on 20.12.2004. EA No.1092 of 2004 was rejected.