PATEGAR LINGA RAJU Vs. AGISAM VEERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the 1st respondent in the Writ Petition against the Judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the Writ Petition. It is necessary to state the facts leading to the present stage.

(2.) In the elections held to the office of Chairman, Anantapur Zilla Praja Parishad, the appellant and the 1st respondent were two of the candidates. The appellant was declared elected on 16-3-1987 According to the Rules relating to decision of election disputes in respect of Mandala Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads (G.O. Ms. No, 130, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development (Mandal-I), 24th February, 1987), framed under Act 31 of 1986, an election petition questioning the election of a Chairman to Zilla Praja Parishad has to be presented to the Election Commissioner within 15 days of the date of declaration of the result of election. The last date for filing the election petition was, thus, 31-3-1987. The 1st respondent filed an election petition on 27-3-1987 mainly contending that the appellant is not a member of the Backward Class for whom the said office was reserved. According to Rule 4(1) of the aforesaid Rules, the said petition has to be accompanied by a cash deposit of Rs. 200/- as security deposit for costs. Rule 4(1) says: "At the time of presentation of the petition, the petitioner shall deposit with it in cash one hundred rupees as security for the costs of the same". Sub-Rule (2) says that "If the provisions of sub-rule (1) are not complied with, the Election Commissioner shall dismiss the petition". Rule 14 modifies Rule 4 in its application to an election petition challenging the election to the office of Chairman of Zilla Parishad. While the security deposit in case of an election petition challenging the election of a Mandal Parishad is Rs. 100/-, in case of election petition challenging the election of Chairman of Zilla Parishad it is Rs.200/-. The 1st respondent deposited only a sum of Rs. 100/- on 27-3-1987, evidenced by Ex. A-1, lodgement schedule. No one noticed the defect. The petition was numbered and certain interim orders were also made in three Interlocutory Applications filed in the Election Petition.

(3.) According to the 1st respondent (election petitioner), on the same day, i.e. 27-3-1987, he received a letter (A2) from his advocate at Hyderabad intimating him that the District Judge is the forum for entertaining the election petition challenging the election to the office of the Chairman to Zilla Praja Parishad and also giving reference to the G.O. containing the rules and of the Gazette in which it was published. He says that he accordingly verified the Rules and found that the deposit towards security for costs ought to have been Rs. 200/. He says he deposited another sum of Rs. 100/- under Exs, A-3 and B-6, on the next day i.e., on 28-3-87.