VARDHINEEDI SREE DEVI Vs. CHEGONDI RAMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent and the revision petitioner contested an election to the post of MPTC of Doddipatla village of Elamanchili Mandal, for which the election took place on 02.07.2006 and counting was held on 04.07.2006. The results were declared on the same day and the revision petitioner was declared elected. Questioning the election of the revision petitioner, first respondent filed election petition with a delay of 47 days and filed a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the election petition. In spite of opposition by the revision petitioner, the election Tribunal by order under revision directed the parties to adduce evidence with regard to the question whether the delay can be condoned or not. Questioning the same, the revision petitioner, who is the successful candidate in the election, filed the revision petition.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that inasmuch as the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act is a special law and the election to the post of MPTC can be questioned under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (the Rules) by filing an election petition within thirty days from the date of declaration of the result of the election, the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act have no application and so, whatever may be the ground on which the delay had occurred, question of condonation of delay does not arise and so, the Tribunal erred in directing the parties to adduce evidence. He relied on Anwari Basavaraj Patil v. Siddaramaiah The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, Hukumdevg Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, Lalchhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal, and Kpragnapuram Indira v. Akkinapally Parvathamma in support of his contention. It is his contention that the Tribunal was in error in assuming that the ratio in Mrs. Ragiboyina Bhulakshmi v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj Department lays down that the provisions of Limitation Act would apply to election petitions filed under the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, as, in that case, the person who lost in the election, instead of filing an election petition before the Tribunal, filed a writ petition in the High Court and a Division Bench of this Court holding that the writ petition is not maintainable, directed the writ petitioner to approach the Tribunal for appropriate relief and so, the said decision has no application to the facts of the case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the first respondent contended that since the first respondent could not file a petition due to ill-health, whether the delay can be condoned or not can be decided after the parties adduce their evidence, and since the Tribunal did not commit any error in directing the parties to adduce evidence, the revision petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order under revision, and in view of the ratio in Ragiboyina Bhulakshmis case, it is easy to see that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to election petitions filed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act also.