MERUGA DHARMAIAH Vs. MERUGA BASAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Principal District Munsif, Repalle in O.P. No. 27 of 1964 on the file of the Election Tribunal. The facts giving rise to this petition are : The 1st respondent filed a petition under the Rules for decision of election disputes framed under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. It was averred in the petition that the elections for Penamarru Panchayat were held on 31st May, 1964. The petitioner and the respondent therein (the present writ petitioner) contested for membership to constituency No. 3. After polling the respondent was declared to have been elected as member by majority of one vote, the contention of the petitioner therein was that the said declaration was illegal and void as six of the voters, i.e., four from Mantripalem and two from Kodithadiparru, have exercised their votes twice and their votes could not be accounted in favour of the respondent. The writ petitioner in his counter, while admitting that he contested in the election for constituency No. 3 and that the respondent was also contesting for that membership and that the writ petitioner was declared elected, stated that no objection was raised by the petitioner or his agent at the time of voting that the votes were invalid. He further averred that he was not aware and does not admit that voters Nos. 351 to 354 and 371 in constituency No. 3 of Penamarru Panchayat were also enrolled as voters Nos. 2272, 2270, 2150, 2130 and 2111 in constituency No. 7 of Mantripalem village and that all the said five voters voted in both the constituencies of the said two Panchayats.

(2.) The learned District Munsif framed the following points for determination : (1) Whether voter No. 361 of Penamarru is also voter No. 326 of Kodithadiparru and whether she voted for the respondent in Penamarru having also voted in Kodithadiparru and if so, whether the said vote cast in favour of the respondent has got to be deleted under section 14 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act? (2) Whether voters Nos. 351 to 354 and 371 of Penamarru are voters Nos. 2272, 2270, 2115, 2113 and 2111 of Mantripalem village and if so, whether they voted for the respondent at Penamarru and also voted at Mantripalam and if so, whether the said votes cast in favour of the respondent have got to be deleted under section 14 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act? On point No. 1 he did not record any finding as the petitioner gave up the plea relating voter No. 361 of Penamarru village. On point No. 2 he found that under section 14 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act a person cannot vote more than once in an election under the said Act in the same constituency either in the same Panchayat or in different Panchayats and, therefore, the votes of voters Nos. 352 to 354 and 371 Were invalid and have got to be deleted from the votes polled by the respondent. Holding thus, he declared that the petitioner before him was duly elected for constituency No. 3 of Penamarru Panchayat. In the result, he allowed the petition. It is this order of the District Munsif that is now challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) The contention of Shri Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the District Munsif has erred in holding that voters Nos. 352 to 354 and 371 have exercised their votes twice and hence their votes are invalid, when under section 14 (6) of the Act the only prohibition is on voting twice in the same Panchayat and it does not extend to different Panchayats by the same voter. The point we have to consider in this writ petition is whether the votes of voters Nos. 352 to 354 and 371 have got to be deleted from the votes cast having regard to the provisions of section 14 (6) of the Act. In order to appreciate this point, we have to refer to certain provisions of the Act. The relevant provisions are sub-section (1) of section 3, sections 4, 7, 10 and 14.