EESAM VIJAYA Vs. VENUMULA SATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTIONS to the Gram Panchayat, Survail, were held on 02-08-2006. The petitioner and respondents 7 and 8 contested for the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch, as she secured highest number of votes.

(2.) THE 1st respondent raised an objection for the candidature of the petitioner, on the ground that the latter had more than two children, and thereby incurred disqualification under Section 19 (3) of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (for short 'the Act' ). After the results were declared, she filed O. P. No. 16 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal-cum-the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal' ). Through its order dated 03-11-2008, the Tribunal allowed the O. P. , and had set aside the election of the petitioner. The 1st respondent was declared elected as Sarpanch. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) SRI V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 1st respondent failed to prove that the petitioner incurred disqualification. He contends that though it was proved through RW-4, that Eesam Gowthami, who is said to be the daughter of the petitioner, is, in fact, the daughter of RW-4, the Tribunal ignored the said fact. He submits that the Tribunal has placed the burden upon the petitioner, to prove that she does not incur disqualification and such an approach is contrary to settled principles of law. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Golla Jayamma v. District collector. Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, filed caveat. He submits that his client has proved beyond any pale of doubt, through oral and documentary evidence, that the petitioner incurred disqualification, and that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. He contends that the evidence of rw-4 is not trustworthy, much less, the documents, Exs. B-1 to B-6, filed by her. The only ground urged by the 1st respondent, to challenge the election of the petitioner is that, the latter incurred disqualification under Section 19 (3) of the Act. She pleaded that the petitioner is the mother of three children, viz. , gowthami, Haritha and Venkatesham.