GAVARA SATTI BABU Vs. GAVARA SIVA SANKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTIONS to the Gram Panchayat of Gulivandada Vilfage, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District were held on 2. 8. 2006. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 contested for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner was declared elected. The 1st respondent filed E. O. P. No. 2 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal - cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, challenging the election of the petitioner. It was pleaded that the petitioner held the office of President of the Water Users Association (for short 'the Association') of Venkayyacheruvu of the village and thereby, incurred disqualification under Section 18 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act' ). It was alleged that the Returning Officer, 5th respondent herein, rejected the nomination of the petitioner, whereas the Deputy District Election Authority i. e. , Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and accordingly, the nomination was accepted. No other grounds were urged.

(2.) THE petitioner opposed the E. O. P. , by stating that though he was the President of the Association, he submitted resignation to that office on 19. 7. 2006 itself and that it was accepted by the Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department. He further contended that as on the date of scrutiny, he ceased to be the President of the Association and the appellate authority was also convinced about his eligibility to contest in the election. Through its order, dated 9. 9. 2008, the Tribunal allowed the O. P. Apart from setting aside the election of the petitioner, it held that the 1st respondent be declared elected. The petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) THE 1st respondent filed a caveat and on his behalf, Sri Ravindra Babu took notice and advanced extensive arguments. He contends that admittedly, the petitioner held the office of President of the Association, as on the date of filing of nomination, and it was not even mentioned by him that he submitted resignation to that office, much less, that it was accepted. He submits that the petitioner did not choose to file the letter of resignation or the proceedings, through which it was accepted, in the evidence. He further submits that the 1997 Act had only stated that the resignation of an elected office bearer shall be accepted by the prescribed authority and no Rules have been framed in this regard. Learned Counsel pleads that unless and until the Superintending Engineer is prescribed as the authority to accept resignation, the so-called proceedings of acceptance, dated 19. 7. 2006, cannot be taken into consideration. It is also urged that the Returning Officer, who deposed as R. W. 5, categorically stated that the petitioner did not even mention that he submitted resignation to the office of President of the Association. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj has also advanced arguments, on the same lines.