LAWS(APH)-1956-3-55

KOSARAJU BRAHMIAH Vs. CHIKURTI CHINTAYYA AND ANOTHER

Decided On March 30, 1956
KOSARAJU BRAHMIAH Appellant
V/S
Chikurti Chintayya And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Election Commissioner, Gudivada, setting aside the election of the petitioner as Vice-President of the Ventrapragada Panchayat.

(2.) Ventrapragada Panchayat Board consists of a President and 8 members. Elections to the panchayat were held on 27-2-1953. One Chelsani Kutumba Rao was elected as President and the petitioner, the 1st respondent and six others were elected as members. The President convened a meeting of the panchayat on 7-9-1953 for the election of a Vice-President. The petitioner and the 1st respondent competed for the office. All the members of the Panchayat including the President, voted at the meeting. The petitioner secured 5 votes and the 1st respondent four votes and petitioner was duly declared elected as Vice-President. The defeated candidate i.e. the 1st respondent filed an election petition before the Election Commissioner to set aside the Election on the ground that the President had no right to vote at the election meeting and, therefore, if his vote was excluded, there would have been equality of votes and, if lots were drawn, he might have been successful. The Election Commissioner accepted his contention a and set aside the election. The present writ is filed to quash that order.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the President of a Panchayat Board is a member of that Board and is, therefore, entitled to vote at all meetings including that held for the election of a Vice-President, whereas learned Counsel for the 1st respondent contends that, under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, a clear distinction is maintained between an ordinary meeting and a meeting specially convened for the election of a Vice-President that the President can exercise only the powers conferred on him under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder in regard to the latter meeting and that those provisions do not entitle him to vote.