A SANJEEVI REDDI Vs. G C KONDAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Election Tribunal, Nellore, dated 5/08/1959 in I.A. No. 4 of 1959 in Election Petition No. 3 of 1959 in so fur as it allowed the 1st respondent to amend the schedules appended to the election petition.

(2.) Consequent on the resignation of the sitting member, there was by-election to the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh from the Atmakur Constituency in the District of Nellore. The petitioner, the 1st respondent and one Dr. Ramachandra Reddy contested the by-election. At the polling the petitioner secured 22,380 votes; the 1st respondent 22,351 votes; and the other candidate 437 votes; and the Returning Officer accordingly declared the petitioner duly elected.

(3.) The 1st respondent herein filed a petition under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (as amended) and therein he prayed that the election of the petitioner might be declared void on the ground, inter alia, that the result of the election had been materially affected by the improper reception of void votes. The 1st respondent included these alleged void votes in schedules 1 to 5 to the election petition. The petitioner filed his written statement denying knowledge as to whether any void votes had been cast in his favour or had been taken into account. On the 25/05/1959 the petitioner inspected the election papers after obtaining permission. The 1st respondent also perused them, and on the following day, the petitioner filed a recrimination petition alleging that certain votes cast in favour of the 1st respondent were themselves void votes. On the 12/06/1959, the 1st respondent filed I.A. No. 4 of 1959 for amendment of the election petition by the addition of some more votes to the five schedules originally filed by him. The application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the matters sought to be introduced thereby were new charges any if admitted, they would result in raising fresh grounds of challenge, and that the amendment should not be granted as a fresh petition on these allegations would be barred on that date. The Tribunal allowed the application of the 1st respondent for amendment, observing that the matters sought to be introduced were merely particulars in respect of a charge already set out in the petition and further, that Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, was applicable to proceedings before the Election Tribunal. The petitioner attacks the correctness of this conclusion and contends that the Tribunal had no power, under Order 6, Rule 17 C. P. C., to order the amendment in question.