BURRA SOUNDARYA Vs. THOUTAM RAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTIONS to the Gram Panchayat of Bhupalpally were held on 29. 7. 2006. The 1st respondent; the petitioner, and respondents 5 to 10 contested the election. The petitioner was declared elected. The 1st respondent filed O. P. No. 8 of 2006 in the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Parkal, challenging the election of the petitioner. It was pleaded inter alia that the husband of the petitioner functioned as Sarpanch in the previous term, and using his influence, he got about 400 invalid votes counted in favour of the petitioner. In the paragraph relating to cause of action, the date of election was mentioned as 28. 7. 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner filed I. A. No. 29 of 2007, with a prayer to reject the O. P. , on the ground that it lacked necessary particulars, as contemplated under Rule 3 (i) (ii)of the A. P. Panchayat Raj (Election tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads)Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules' ). The 1st respondent filed I. A. No. 30 of 2007, with a prayer to amend the date of election, wherever it occurred in the O. P. She pleaded that the date - 28. 7. 2006, be substituted with the date - 29. 7. 2006. While the petitioner opposed I. A. No. 30 of 2007, the 1st respondent opposed I. A. No. 29 of 2007, by filing counter-affidavits. Through a common order dated 9. 3. 2007, the tribunal dismissed I. A. No. 29 of 2007 and allowed I. A. No. 30 of 2007. Hence, these two revisions.

(3.) SRI P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings in an election petition are governed by the rules, and any non-compliance thereof, must entail in dismissal. He contends that the petition is silent, as to the nature of alleged irregularities, or the source of information to the 1st respondent. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Chaluvadi Hanumayamma v. Sandrapati Jainabee, 2003 (5) ALT 741 = 2004 (1) ALD (NOC) 29, learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal ought to have allowed I. A. No. 29 of 2007. He further submits that a wrong date was mentioned in the paragraph, relating to cause of action, and such an important omission cannot be permitted to be corrected by way of amendment.