N V NARASIMHA RAO Vs. SOMEPALLI SAMBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 87 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 read with Order 6 Rule 16 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking out the pleadings and dismissing the Election Petition No.12 of 1995, inter alia, on the ground that the affidavit accompanying the election petition has not been sworn before the Magistrate of I Class or Notary or Commissioner of Oaths as prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules in Form No.25 read with Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and the copy of the affidavit served on the petitioner does not contain proper attestation and the allegations of corrupt practices made in Paras 7 to 10 suffer from material irregularity and are vague.

(2.) It is not disputed before me that the petitioner had contested the X Legislative Assembly Elections from 110 Chilakaluripet assembly segment on behalf of the Indian National Congress (I) Party with the election symbol 'Hand' while the first respondent (petitioner in E.P. 12 of 1995) had contested the said election on behalf of the Telugu Desam party with the election symbol 'Cycle'. The other respondents had also contested the said election. The polling was held on 1-12-1994. The petitioner was declared elected by the Returning Officer, that is Respondent No,20 in the night of 1-12-1994. He had won the election by 131 votes. The first respondent had lost the election as also the other respondents.

(3.) The first respondent has filed E.P. 12 of 1995 seeking declaration of the election of the petitioner as void, for inspection, scrutiny and recounting of the ballot papers in 110 Chilakaluripet assembly constituency and declaring him as duly elected from the said constituency. The first respondent has alleged in the election petition that on account of various corrupt practices committed by the petitioner and his supporters with his knowledge and consent during the election period, his electoral prospects were materially effected with the result that he lost the election. He has set out in detail the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in Paras 7 to 10 of the election petition. It is alleged that there was large scale misuse of official machinery to secure victory of the petitioner. A large number of supporters of the first respondent in various villages were arrested two days prior to the poll to prevent those persons from participating in the election process as they were influential persons in their villages. The police had joined hands with the petitioner in furthering his winning chances. The petitioner had visited the village Eviruvaripalem of Chilakaluripet Mandal and had promised the villagers that he would arrange for laying a road from that village to Gorantlavaripalem if the voters vote for him. He had engaged lorries bearing No. ADV 2722 and AP 017 1188 belonging to Dhanalakshmi Cotton Industries, Chilakaluripet on 24-11-1994 and had transported earth to be used in the construction of the road. This act of the petitioner had induced the voters of the said village to vote for him. The petitioners had visited the villages and had promised the villagers that free clothes would be distributed to them and immediately thereafter, sarees and dho this were distributed through PDS under the Government Scheme. This was done to induce the illiterate rural voters and to make them understand that free clothes were distributed only at the instance of the petitioner. The Mandal Revenue Officer of Chilakaluripet had cooperated with the petitioner in timing for the said distribution. The Village Administrative Officer namely Sri N. Rajeshwara Rao of Village Nadendla in Chilakaluripet constituency who was a public servant openly and actively campaigned for the petitioner with him and the local Member of Lok Sabha namely Sri Kasu Krishna Reddy and had urged the voters to vote for his Party in the elections. It is also alleged that during the counting of votes, the counting officials as also the Returning Officer, that is Respondent No.20, had deliberately declared as invalid, votes validly cast in favour of the first respondent inspite of protests and this was done by the respondent No.20 with a view to help the petitioner in improving his winning chances. It has been lastly alleged that during the counting process of the 7th and the 8th rounds, the votes validly cast in favour of the first respondent were bundled out and counted in favour of the petitioner inspite of protests by his counting agents and the Respondent No.20 had brushed aside the objections raised by the first respondent, The results of the 7th and 8th rounds were not displayed on the board with a view to mislead the counting agents of the first respondent. The respondent No.20 by his proceedings URC No. Nil dated 10-12-1994 had rejected the request of the first respondent for recounting of the 7th and the 8th rounds of counting. The said mistakes had materially affected the case of the first respondent, as the petitioner was declared elected by a margin of 131 votes only.