BANDA MAHENDER GOUD Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTION to the Gram Panchayat, Thallapally Village of Shabad Mandal, ranga Reddy District, was held on 02-08-2006. The petitioner, the 6th respondent, and certain others contested for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner was declared as elected. The 6th respondent filed O. P. No. 1 of 2006 before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election tribunal, Chevella, challenging the election of the petitioner. He pleaded inter alia, that the petitioner gave birth to fourth child, in the year 1999 and thereby, incurred disqualification under Section 19 (3) of the A. P. Panchayath raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act' ). The particulars gathered by him, about the fourth child, by name, Srikanth Goud, were furnished. The petitioner opposed the O. P. , by stating that his son, Srikanth Goud, was born on 22-05-1995, and in that view of the matter, he did not incur disqualification. Through its judgment dated 24-03-2008, the Tribunal held that the petitioner incurred disqualification and thereby, had set aside his election. As a consequence, the Tribunal declared the 6th respondent as having been elected as a Sarpanch. The order of the Tribunal in the O. P. is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) SRI C. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client placed before the Tribunal, the birth certificate, in respect of the child, issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for short 'the Births and Deaths Act'), marked as Ex. R-2, and still the Tribunal did not take the same into account. He contends that the 6th respondent procured the documents from different agencies, totally unconnected with the child.

(3.) SRI G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal had discussed the voluminous oral and documentary evidence, and arrived at a conclusion, that the petitioner gave birth to a child, one year, after the Act came into force. He contends that, not only the principles, governing the appreciation of evidence, but also those, underlying the relevant enactments, were thoroughly analyzed by the Tribunal, and that no interference is warranted, with the order under challenge. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj has also advanced his contentions.