KOTHAPALLI GEETHA Vs. GUMMIDI SANDHYA RANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st respondent in the EP No. 30 of 2014 filed this election application, being EA No. 11 of 2015, under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, read with Section 86 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, (for short, 'the RP Act') to reject the election petition filed by the election petitioner-1st respondent herein, (here in after referred to as 'election petitioner') on the ground of lack of cause of action.

(2.) The case of the petitioner herein (here in after referred to as 'returned candidate') is that in the general elections she contested the election to the seat of Member of Parliament from Araku parliamentary constituency, seat a reserved for Scheduled Tribe (ST) and having emerged as a successful candidate was declared elected as Member of Parliament on 16.5.2014. That as per Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act, the plaint of the election petition should contain a concise statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies and such a statement of material facts is mandatory to maintain the election petition. That in the instant case, no such concise statement of material facts is stated by the election petitioner in the plaint and the election petition filed by the election petitioner does not disclose any cause of action and, therefore, the election petition is liable to be rejected for want of lack of cause of action.

(3.) It is further case of the returned candidate that she contested from Araku (ST) Parliamentary constituency on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the competent authority and she has been recognised as belonging to the community of Scheduled Tribe all through her education and she was also appointed as Deputy Collector based on her social status certificate of Scheduled Tribe. That her social status certificate was not questioned by the election petitioner and there is no pleading or a concise statement of facts that the social status certificate produced by the returned candidate is not genuine. That in the absence of such a pleading, this Court has no jurisdiction to determine whether the social status certificate is genuine or not and whether the returned candidate belongs to Scheduled Tribe or not. That the competent authority under the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST, BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act') and the rules made thereunder alone can go into the genuineness or otherwise of the caste certificate and can take action based on the outcome of the enquiry. That as on date, the social status certificate issued to the returned candidate by the competent authority is in force and as such is valid in the eye of law. That the election petitioner has not made any allegation of corrupt practice either against the returned candidate or the returning officer, except stating that the returned candidate does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and not eligible to contest to a seat which is reserved for Scheduled Tribe. That election petitioner has not stated which provision of law is violated by the returning officer in accepting the nomination of the returned candidate. The allegation of the election petitioner that the returned candidate has been claiming differently at different points of time and recorded as Mala, Christian, Adi-Andhra etc., are false and incorrect, whereas the returned candidate has been claiming her social status as Scheduled Tribe all through her life and all educational records show her as belonging to Scheduled Tribes (ST). That the election petition is based on surmises and conjectures and is filed needlessly to harass and not allowing her to concentrate on the developmental works in the constituency.