GADEPALLI PARAYYA Vs. ELECTION TRIBUNAL ELURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the order of the Election Tribunal, Elluru (Andhra) in Election Petition No. 7 of 1955 dated 6-4-1956.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to state the following facts: The petitioner and respondents 2 to 10 filed their nomination papers for election of the Andhra Legislative Assembly from the double-member constituency of Salur in Srikakulam District. Of the two seats, one was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes and the other was a general constituency. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 filed their nominations to the reserved seat. Respondents 4 to 10 were nominated to the general seat. On 7-1-1955 the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers, the petitioner filed objections to the nomination of the 2nd respondent on the ground that he was not a member of the Scheduled Tribes. The Resuming Officer dismissed the petition observing as follows:

(3.) Before declaring the result, the Returning Officer held that the 2nd respondent and 3rd respondent both belonged to the Scheduled Tribes and that the objection raised by the petitioner was untenable. 3. On the 6/05/1955, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951) alleging inter alia that the Returning Officer was bound to decide under Section 36(2) all objections raised to the nominations at the time of scrutiny, that the Returning Officer erroneously postponed his decision till the time of the counting of votes and that this had materially affected the result of the election, that his was the only valid nomination for the reserved seat and that he should have been duly declared elected thereto. He therefore prayed to declare the entire election wholly void and to declare him as having been duly elected to the reserved seat. The second respondent filed a written statement denying the material averments. On the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are not members of the Scheduled Tribes? 2. Whether the Returning Officer made any enquiry regarding the objection raised to the nominations of respondents 1 and 2 at the time of scrutiny under Section 36 Clause (2) of the Representation or the People Act, and if not, what is the effect of his accepting the nominations of respondents 1 and 2? 3. Whether the petitioner can claim alternative reliefs, if not, which relief he elects to choose?