PUDI KRISHNAVENI Vs. PADALA PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The elections to the office of Sarpanch and Members of Tumbali Gram Panchayat were held on 26.7.2006. The petitioner herein was declared as elected as Sarpanch of the village. Second respondent herein challenged the election in E.O.P. No.l of 2006 on the file of Election Tribunal- cum-Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram. By impugned order, dated 2.3.2007, Election Tribunal declared the election of petitioner herein as illegal and void, and further declared first respondent as elected to the office of Sarpanch of Tumbali Gram Panchayat Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Election Tribunal. First respondent filed caveat petition and also filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. The matter is heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) The brief fact of the matter is as follows. As per the election notification issued by the State Election Commission, last date for filing nominations was 19.7.2006. Petitioner, respondent and thirteen others filed their nominations. Petitioner filed two sets of nominations. Scrutiny of the nominations was conducted on 20.7.2006. Returning Officer, fourth respondent, published list of validly nominated candidates in Form VI under Rule 12(4) of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2006 (the Rules, for brevity) promulgated by Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 142, dated 3.5.2006. Last date for withdrawal of nominations under Rule 14(1) of the Rules was 23.7.2006. Petitioner herein submitted notice of withdrawal of candidature in Form VII under Rule 14(1) on that date. Fourth respondent issued Form VIII, i.e., publication of notice of withdrawal of candidature showing the name of the petitioner also. However, the name of the petitioner was also included in Form IX i.e., list of contesting candidates under Rule 15 of the Rules and she was allotted election symbol. First respondent allegedly raised objection, which was not rejected. Therefore, first respondent unsuccessfully filed an appeal before third respondent herein under Rule 13 of the Rules. Ultimately, petitioner was elected as Sarpanch with 602 votes, defeating first respondent, who got 501 votes. The election was challenged on the ground that the nomination of petitioner was improperly accepted after withdrawal of candidature, which materially affects the result of the first respondent.

(3.) The petitioner opposed the election O.P., before the Election Tribunal, mainly contending that she filed two sets of nominations, that both of them are found to be in order, that the Returning Officer asked her to withdraw one set of nomination and therefore, she withdrew the nomination and that the withdrawal of one nomination cannot amount to withdrawal from the contest. Fourth respondent also filed counter, which was adopted by respondents 2 and 3 herein. They alleged that there was no illegality in allowing the petitioner to contest election even after withdrawal of one set of nomination.