SUNNAM RAMAKKA Vs. BADISHA NAGA VISHNU MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. K. Udayasree, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in all these batch of C.R.Ps., and Sri Y. Rama Rao, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents in C.R.P.No.6299 of 2006.

(2.) Smt. Udayasree, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners in all these batch of C.R.Ps. would contend that these C.R.P.S are filed as against the respective orders by virtue of which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Election Tribunal at Mulugu, Warangal District had rejected the respective memos raising preliminary objections relating to the very maintainability of the respective Election Petitions. The learned Counsel would submit that the Election Tribunal failed to appreciate that the election petition has to be filed in accordance with the Rules framed in G.O. Ms. No.l 11, dated 3-3-1993 only as A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal in respect of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishad) Rules 1995 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Rules' for the purpose of convenience). The learned Counsel also would submit that Rule 5 of the Rules specifies that at the time of presentation of the election petition, a cash of Rs.100/- to be deposited as security for the costs of the same and in the event of the same not being complied with, the Election Tribunal is left with no other option except to dismiss the election petition. the learned Counsel also would submit that the Election Tribunal failed to appreciate that the payment of Court-fee is different from the compliance of Rule 5(1) of the Rules and payment of Court-fee is Rs.50/- whereas security deposit is Rs.100/- and the same should be in cash. The learned Counsel also would point out that the Election Tribunal had erred in referring to Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Code') which has no application at all to the present batch of cases. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Anjamma v. S. Pushpamma, 2001 (1) ALD 77 = 2001 (1) ALT 235 (DB).

(3.) Sri Y. Rama Rao on the other hand would contend that the Election Tribunal recorded reasons in detail and especially in the light of the reasons which had been recorded in Para 4 of the impugned orders, the said orders need not be disturbed by this Court. The learned Counsel also would submit that even otherwise instead of moving regular applications, memos were filed in all these matters.