LAWS(APH)-1997-6-30

M RANGA REDDY Vs. N INDRASENA REDDY

Decided On June 09, 1997
M.RANGA REDDY Appellant
V/S
N.INDRASENA REDDY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the first respondent in the Election Petition No.2 of 1995, under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to dismiss the Election Petition No.2 of 1995 on the ground that the copy of the election petition accompanied by supporting affidavit in Form 25, prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules') served on him is without the attestation of the Magistrate of First Class or a Notary or Commissioner of Oaths and is not in accordance with the requirement contemplated under Section 83(1 )(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The applicant Sri M. Ranga Reddy is the returned candidate from 212-Malakpet Assembly Constituency for which election was held on 1-12-1994. He contested the election on Telugu Desam Party ticket. The respondent herein - Sri N. Indrasena Reddy unsuccessfully contested the said election on Bharatiya Janata Party ticket. Apart from these two candidates, there were several other contestants including the candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress.

(3.) Sri N. Indrasena Reddy filed the Election Petition No.2 of 1995 seeking to declare the election of the returned candidate who is the first respondent in the election petition as void and sought a further declaration that he be declared as having been duly elected from 212-Malakpet Assembly Constituency. The election petition is principally founded on the grounds of various corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the returned candidate and his supporters with his knowledge and consent during the electioneering period. According to the election petitioner, as a result of various corrupt practices committed by the returned candidate, his electoral prospects were materially affected, as a result of which he lost the elections. But for the corrupt practices committed by the returned candidate, the election petitioner claimed that he would have won the election with considerable margin.