JELLELLA ANJAIAH Vs. LOKANI SOMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTIONS to the Rajupet Gram Panchayat, Thipparthi Mandal, Nalgonda District were held on 2. 8. 2006. The petitioner, 1st respondent and certain others contested for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner and the 1st respondent secured 1230 and 1222 votes respectively, and the petitioner was declared as elected. The 1st respondent filed OP No. 15 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal -cum -Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, challenging the election of the petitioner, on several grounds. As may as six material facts were pleaded against the petitioner and it was ultimately prayed that the election of the petitioner be set aside and that the 1st respondent be declared as elected as Sarpanch. The petitioner opposed the election petition, by filing a counter - affidavit. Evidence was recorded and through its order, dated 9. 10. 2007, the Tribunal allowed the O. P. and directed recounting of votes for the office of Sarpanch for the Gram Panchayat. Necessary directions were issued to the Chief Election Officer -cum -District Collector to appoint an officer to undertake recounting. It was also directed that the result be announced, depending on the outcome of the recounting. The petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal.

(2.) IT is urged that there was not even a prayer, much less a plea, in the election petition for recounting of votes and the Election Tribunal grossly erred in directing recounting. The petitioner contends that the order of the Tribunal is beyond the scope of its powers.

(3.) THE 1st respondent filed the O. P. , challenging the election of the petitioner, by raising several grounds. Her prayer was two -fold viz. , to set aside the election of the petitioner and to declare herself as the elected candidate. She deposed as P. W. i and examined another witness as P. W. 2. Her documentary evidence comprised of Exs. P. l to P. 5. The petitioner deposed as R. W. 1 and on his behalf, two other witnesses viz. , R. Ws. 2 and 3 were examined. The Tribunal identified only one point for its consideration viz. , whether the election petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition. The concluding paragraph of the order of the Tribunal reads as under :