Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nimmaka Simhachalam vs Pamula Pushpa Sreevani on 15 October, 2024
APHC010198782019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
ELECTION PETITION NO: 20/2019
Between:
Nimmaka Simhachalam and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Pamula Pushpa Sreevani ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. J SATYA PRASAD
2. SRIMAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
N ASHWANI KUMAR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Election Petition is filed to declare the election of respondent herein as Member of 11-Kurupam (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh, for which polling was held on 11.04.2019, to be null and void, set aside the same and for costs.
2. The averments mentioned in the petition in brief are as follows:
2
i). The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being Jatapu Tribes, which is notified as Schedule Tribe under the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order 1950 and Schedule Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976, had contested for 11-
Kurupam (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency of Vizianagaram District general elections held on 11.04.2019 from registered political parties i.e., Bharatiya Janata Party and Indian National Congress respectively and remained as unsuccessful candidates. The respondent was fielded from Y.S.R. Congress Party and declared as duly elected.
ii). It is further submitted that the respondent is not the member of notified Schedule Tribe in Presidential Order, but she claims herself as belongs to Schedule Tribe Community Konda Dora Sl.No.13 (ST). Section 5(a) of Representation of People Act, 1951 provides qualifications for membership of a Legislative Assembly. According to it, a person shall not be qualified to be 3 chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes of that State, he is a member of any of those Tribes, as the case may be, and is an elector for any Assembly Constituency in that State. As such, the respondent is not qualified to contest in a reserved seat, which is reserved for Scheduled Tribes in 11 Kurupam (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency, Vizianagaram District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. But she contested in a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
iii). According to the definition of Article 342(1) of Constitution of India, the President may with respect to any State after consultation with the Governor by public notification specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purpose of this constitution be deemed to be Schedule Tribes in relation to that State. 4
iv). The 2nd petitioner filed objections before Returning Officer stating that the respondent nomination papers have to be rejected complaining that respondent is not a member of notified Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order. But the Election Returning Officer has not considered the said objections and improperly accepted her nomination by passing order, dated 26.03.2019.
v). In fact, father of the respondent by name Pamula Narayana Murthy is originally native of T.D.Parapuram Village, Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District. But, he migrated to Doramamidi Village, Buttayagudem Mandal of West Godavari District and the respondent has obtained Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate showing her caste as Kondadora Scheduled Tribe. In fact, Konda Dora Tribes are only residing in three districts i.e., Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam Districts and they are not available in West Godavari District. But, the respondent produced Konda 5 Dora Tribe Certificate from Buttaigudem Mandal of West Godavari District, which is invalid certificate, based on which, she contested in Tribes Constituency and was elected.
vi). The caste of the respondent's father was noted in the school admission register as Konda, but the said Konda caste was not notified in the Presidential order issued under Article 342(1) of Constitution of India in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As such, the respondent ought not to have secured caste certificate as Konda Dora either from West Godavari District or Srikakulam District. There is no proof that respondent belongs to Kondadora Tribe, except certificate obtained by her from Buttaigudem Mandal of West Godavari District, which is invalid in the eye of law.
vii). The sister of the respondent got selected to the post of School Assistant in the year 2006. But, the Integrated Tribal Development Authority, K.R.Puram, West Godavari 6 District rejected her selection stating that the caste certificate submitted by her as Scheduled Tribe Konda Dora was rejected.
viii). Under Section 5(a) of Representation of People Act 1951, the respondent is not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in Scheduled Tribe in terms of Presidential Order. Hence, the Election Petition.
3. The respondent made her appearance by denying the allegations in the petition and she contended in the written statement in brief as follows:
i). The petition is not maintainable either under law or facts. The respondent was born on 22.06.1986 in Konda Dora Tribe Community. Her family celebrated 'Pilli Pandaga', which is an important festival of Konda Dora Tribe and her family members worship 'Pandavas' and also pray to main deities such as 'Thalupulamma and Mutyalamma', which are common and age-old practices followed by the Konda Dora Tribe. Her ancestors are 7 permanent residents of T.D.Parapuram Village, Palakonda Mandal of Srikakulam District.
ii). Her father pursued his preliminary education in Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District, thereafter pursued 4th class to 9th class at Zilla Parishad High School, Srikakulam District and completed his 10th class from Zilla Parishad High School at Pedapadu of West Godavari District. After completion of education, the father of the respondent joined ITDA Engineering Division at Buttaigudem in ST Quota in the year, 1997 as Head Mazdoor and promoted as teacher under the ST quota.
iii). The respondent and all her siblings are born at Doramamidi Village, Buttaigudem Mandal of West Godavari District after their father migrated from T.D.Parapuram village, Palakonda Mandal of Srikakulam District. They were pursued their primary and higher education at Doramamidi village and their admission was 8 also under Konda Dora Tribe. The respondent also secured job under the ST quota in Tribal Welfare Residential School at Buttaigudem basing on her caste status only.
iv). Initially, one Regu Maheswara Rao had challenged the genuinety and correctness of the caste status of the respondent before the District Collector, Eluru at West Godavari District. The D.L.S.C. had gone into the root of the matter to ascertain the origin of the respondent's family and found that the respondent's roots were genuinely from Konda Dora ST community and submitted a report, dated 29.04.2021 to the District Collector, Eluru of West Godavari District. Thereafter, the District Collector, Eluru vide proceedings in Roc.No.C2/e-1739206/2019, dated 09.05.2021 has also declared that the respondent belongs to Konda Dora Community and that respondent's caste status is genuine and authentic.9
v). On that, the said Regu Maheswara Rao has preferred an appeal against the said order before the Government and the Appellate Authority vide G.O.Ms.No.6, Social Welfare (TW CB-II) Department, dated 02.02.2022, upheld the orders of the District Collector.
vi). Now, the present election petitioners along with the said Regu Maheswara Rao has formed into a syndicate with a sole aim and intent to constantly file petitions against respondent only to deny her right enshrined under the Constitution of India. The opposition parties especially Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) through their front men have further once again vindictively challenged the said G.O.Ms.No.6, Social Welfare (TW CB-II) Department, dated 02.02.2022, vide W.P.No.9475 of 2022 before this Court and the same is pending.
vii). It is further contended that this Court while trying the present Election Petition, does not have power or 10 jurisdiction to decide the respondent's caste status and it is beyond the scope and powers vested in this Court by the Constitution of India and also People's Representatives Act, 1951.
viii). The copy submitted by the petitioners to the respondent does not disclose 'True Copy' under the signature of the Election Petitioners and therefore, the present Election Petition suffers from non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the Peoples Representatives Act, 1951.
ix). The petitioners nowhere stated or pleaded that the impugned election is materially affected by accepting the respondent's nomination by the Returning Officer.
Hence, there is no cause of action to file the present election petition as the objection raised by the petitioners was duly considered by the Returning Officer who passed a detailed order while accepting respondent's candidature for nomination. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
11
4. In reply, the 2nd petitioner filed rejoinder denying the averments made in the written statement and contended in brief as follows:
i). In the school admission and withdrawals register of father of respondent and siblings of father of respondent it is mentioned in 12th column as 'Konda' community, but not as 'Konda Dora Tribe'.
ii). The order from the Government was obtained in favour of respondent by misusing her power as she acted as Minister for Tribal Welfare during that relevant period.
iii). The authorities have suspected the genuinety of the caste certificate of respondent's sister, and as such, they denied her candidature in DSC 2006 and requested the RDO, Jangareddygudem to verify the genuinety of her caste certificate.
5. After considering the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are framed for enquiry on 02.03.2023: 12
i).Whether the respondent's nomination was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer?
ii).Whether the said improper acceptance of nomination materially affected the result of the election?
iii).Whether the respondent is a member of the Scheduled Tribe called Konda Dora?
iv).Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to decide on the "Caste Status" of the respondent?
v).Whether the failure to mention "True Copy" under the signature; alleged failure to verify the Election Petition etc., are fatal to the petitioners case? and
vi).To what relief?
6. In view of the orders passed in I.A.No.5 of 2023, the following additional issues are framed on 12.12.2023:
i).Whether the issue of status of caste of the returned candidate be gone into when there is no challenge or 13 alteration to the caste certificate issued to the returned candidate?
ii).Whether the Election Tribunal constituted under Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 has jurisdiction to directly or incidentally declare the caste status of the candidate, which has been confirmed by the competent authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993? and
iii).Whether the Election Petition is presented in conformity with the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951?
7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined, Exs.A.1 to A.7 are exhibited and during cross examination of R.W.1 and R.W.5, Exs.A.8 to A.10, X.5 and X.6 are also marked. On behalf of the respondent, 14 R.Ws.1 to 5 are examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11, X.1 to X.4 are exhibited.
8. Heard Sri J.Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Sriman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
9. From the very beginning of the arguments, it is urged by Sri N.Aswani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent that the period of term of the Member of Legislative Counsel who got elected in the year, 2019 including the respondent was expired on 04th day of June 2024. Therefore, by virtue of expiry of five (5) year term of the respondent by 04th day of June 2024, no relief can be granted in the election petition and that it has become infructuous.
10. It is not in dispute that the term of Member of Legislative counsel elected in 2019 including the respondent is expired by 04th day of June 2024. If that is so, the election petition filed against the respondent became infructuous. Drawing a reference on the said aspect, it is apposite to refer certain 15 authoritative pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashi Nath Mishra v. Vikramaditya Pandey1, wherein a three-Judge Bench dismissed an election appeal as infructuous, where the term of Assembly expired by efflux of time and another election was held and another Assembly was constituted.
11. Another three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Romesh v. Ramesh K. Rana2, wherein the request was for recount of votes without any allegations of commission of any corrupt practice and in the meanwhile when the Assembly itself was dissolved, the Apex Court considered that nothing further survives for consideration and dismissed the election appeal.
12. In Mundrika Singh Yadav v. Shiv Bachan Yadav3, again the relief of recount was sought for, but in the meanwhile, the term of Assembly was over and fresh elections were being held. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the 1 (1998) 8 SCC 735 2 (2000) 9 SCC 265 3 (2005) 12 SCC 211 16 appeal to be infructuous, as no relief can be allowed to the election petitioner even if election appeal is allowed.
13. The above precedents are not expressed elaborately, but the uniform judicial approach seems to discourage any continuance of the election petitions to their logical conclusion in the absence of allegations of commission of any corrupt practice, when the Legislative Body ceased to exist or fresh elections took place or a fresh House came into existence. In the present case on hand, in the light of the approach of the above pronouncements, since the term of Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly elected in 2019 itself has expired, and a fresh election was being held and a new Legislative Assembly was elected in 2024, thereby, the present election petition has to fail as infructuous.
14. However, since this Court is compelled to decide the present election petition on merits by the learned counsel on both sides by appreciating the material on record, the issues framed supra are answered as under.
17
15. ISSUE No.5:
Whether the failure to mention "True Copy" under the signature as well alleged failure to verify the Election Petition are fatal to the petitioners' case? The first defense taken in the reply by the elector is that the signature as well alleged failure to verify the Election Petition are fatal to the petitioners' case. Thereby, this court is answering the said point first. On this aspect, it is apt to mention an authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, which has explained the legal position in that regard in paragraph 8 of its judgment in the case of Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal4, which reads as follows:
"8. Before examining the merits of the issues raised on behalf of the election petitioner with reference to the relevant statutory provisions, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the observations of this Court in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh. AIR 1954 SUPREME COURT 210 Speaking for the Constitution Bench, Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J., had said that the statutory requirement of election law must be strictly 4 2009 (10) SCC 541 18 observed, and that the election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity, but is purely a statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and that the Court possesses no common law power. It is also well settled that the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. Nevertheless, it is also to be borne in mind that one of the essentials of the election law is to safeguard the purity of the election process and, therefore, the courts must zealously ensure that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of that law or by indulging in corrupt practices, as enumerated in the Act."
16. For this issue, in paragraph No.19 of the written statement, the respondent has taken specific defence that in the copy which was submitted by the election petitioners to this respondent does not disclose 'True Copy' under the signature of the election petitioners in the above election petition. Therefore, the above election petition suffers from non-compliance of Section 81(3) of Representation of Peoples 19 Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "R.P.Act") and hence, the election petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. On which, the learned counsel for the election petitioners argued that no doubt the provision itself speaks that the election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as that of number of respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioners under their own signatures to be a 'true copy' of the petition. But, the purport of provision is to furnish a true copy of the petition is, not to frustrate the cause of the petitioners approaching the Court by adhering strictly to technicalities of little consequences.
18. In this connection, it should be kept in mind that the purport of verified election petition is that the respondent must have correct idea of the allegations and that he/she may not be misled by any material aspect by furnishing of a copy of the affidavit which may not be a correct copy having vital variation 20 from the original. For that reason, the "True Copy" under the signature as well verified the Election Petition has to be filed.
19. It is true that in the matters relating to elections and election petitions, strict compliance of the legal provisions is necessary and full care is to be taken to see that rights of an elected representative are not lightly disturbed and rightly so. But an election petition is not to be thrown at the threshold on the slightest pretext of one kind or the other, which may or may not have any material bearing on the factors to be strictly adhered to in such matters. If it is permitted otherwise, the returned candidate would only be in the lookout microscopically for any kind of technical lacuna or defect to abort the endeavor of the petitioners to bring to trial the issues relating to corrupt practices in the elections.
20. The purpose of the law, on this point, cannot be to allow the returned candidate to avoid the trial of the issues of corrupt practices raised against him on the basis of any little defect which may not result in any vital variation between the 21 original and the true copy so as to have the effect of misleading the returned candidate. As it is, the prevailing situation of elections and practices often said to be adopted now and then and here and there does not always give a very happy picture. Free, fair and fearless election is ideal to be achieved and not to be defeated for the sake of pretentious and frivolous technicalities.
21. In this connection, the Constitutional Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muraka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore5, at paragraph No.14 observed that:
"14. .......... The certified copy of the rejection of the nomination paper was verified to be a true copy and we fail to see how any further signature of the petitioner was necessary thereon. It is obvious to us that a copy of the vakalatnama was not required under sub-s. (3) of section 81 nor was it necessary to make a further endorsement that two copies of the petition had been filed along with the petition. It is not disputed that copies as required by sub-s.(3) of section 81 were filed. The only' grievance 5AIR 1964 SC 1545 22 made is that the endorsement "two copies" was not repeated in the enclosure portion of the copy served on the appellant. We have already explained what is meant by the word " copy" in sub-s. (3) of section 81 and we are of the view that the defects pointed out on behalf of the appellant are not of such a character as to invalidate the copy which was served on the appellant in the present case."
22. From the above, it is clear that failure to mention "True Copy" under the signature is not a defect, which is not fatal and would not affect the maintainability of the election petition. To the said effect, there is another pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhikaji Keshao Joshi v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani6, wherein the five Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "this is a curable defect".
23. In the present case on hand, on verifying the testimony of the respondent, she did not take any such specific defence that the word "True Copy" was not mentioned in the copy supplied to her and no evidence was placed on record to show 6AIR 1955 SC 610 23 that the copy of the election petition served upon her was materially affected. No material averments mentioned in her (respondent) testimony, only bare plea taken in the written statement. Based on such averment in the written statement, the above issue was framed, however, subsequently, when come to the testimony of the respondent, who has taken such defence in the written statement, has not testified anything that because of non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act, affected her case as well which is fatal to the petitioners' case.
24. Therefore, as already stated supra, it is only a defect, which can be corrected in accordance with principle of Civil Procedure Code and more so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above pronouncements has categorically observed that it is not fatal and would not affect the maintainability of the election petition.
25. More so, the crux of the issue in the main election petition raised is about the caste status of the respondent and 24 respondent is thus aware of the issue involved. Therefore, simply because a copy supplied was not signed as 'True Copy' nor verified by the petitioners does not go to root of the case of the petitioners rather it will be fatal to the petitioners' case. Moreover, the entire purpose of the verification and stating "True Copy" is only to ensure that the opposite party has not taken up by surprise and that, what is served on the respondent is an accurate true copy of the petition filed into the Court.
26. In this connection, there is also another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch.Subarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad7, wherein it was clearly held that "if there is substantial compliance which requirement under Section 81(3) of the Act, the election petition cannot be dismissed under Section 90(3) of R.P. Act." Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.
AIR 1964 SC 1027 7 25
27. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1:
Whether the Election Petition is presented in conformity with the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951?
The election petition is filed under Sections 80-A, 81, r/w.5(a) and 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. On this issue, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the election petition ought to have been filed under Section 100(1)(d) instead of under Section 100(1)(a) of the R.P.Act, thereby the petition is liable to be dismissed.
28. In this context, it is not out of place to refer Section 100(1)(a) of the R.P. Act deals that:
100.Grounds for declaring election to be void.-- [(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if [the High Court] is of the opinion-
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963).
29. Also, section 100(1) (d) of the R.P.Act reads as follows: 26
(d) that the result of the election, in so far, as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected-
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate [by an agent other than his election agent], or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act.
30. Section 5(a) of Representation of People Act, 1951 provides qualifications for membership of a Legislative Assembly. According to it, a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes of that State, unless he is a member of any of those Tribes, as the case may be and is an elector for any Assembly Constituency in that State.
27
31. In view of the above, the case falls under Section 100(1)(a) is also one of the subject of decision of this Court, because the case of the petitioners mainly rests upon non qualification of the respondent to contest the seat reserved for Schedule Tribe. When the question is about the social status of the respondent, which in turn, needs to be verified on the basis of the material on record, that too in accordance with the relevant provisions of law as indicated above, the petition under Section 100(1)(d) of the R.P.Act is totally impermissible. Thereby, the Election Petition is presented in conformity with the provisions of the R.P.Act. Thus, this issue is answered.
32. ISSUE No.4 and ADDITIONAL ISSUE NOs.1 & 2:
4).Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to decide on the "Caste Status" of the respondent?
1).Whether the issue of status of caste of the returned candidate be gone into when there is no challenge or alteration to the caste certificate issued to the returned candidate?
2).Whether the Election Tribunal constituted under Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 has jurisdiction to 28 directly or incidentally declare the caste status of the candidate, which has been confirmed by the competent authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993?
33. To answer these issues, it is to be noted that under Article 173 of the Constitution prescribes the qualification for membership of the State Legislature and provides that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the legislature of a State unless he/she is a citizen of India, not less than 25 years of age, and possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law made by Parliament.
34. Section 5 of the R.P. Act made by Parliament prescribes the qualification for membership of a Legislative Assembly. It provides that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State, reserved for the Scheduled Tribes of that State, unless he/she is a member of 29 any of those Scheduled Tribes and he/she is an elector for any assembly constituency in that State.
35. Section 100 of the Act enumerates the grounds for declaring an election to be void. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) thereof provides that if the High Court is of the opinion that on the date of his/her election, a return candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or under the Act, the High Court shall declare the elections of the returned candidate to be void. Thus, if a candidate, who contests the election, representing himself/herself by belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, is shown in a proceeding contesting his/her election, as not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe of the State, his/her election is liable to be declared as void.
36. So, in a case of seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe, such Scheduled Tribe has to contest in the election, representing himself/herself belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, if the elector questions the contested candidate is not a Scheduled Tribe 30 person by placing evidence, then High Court has to appreciate such evidence on record to decide whether the contesting candidate is belongs to Schedule Tribe or not and if so, if the candidate, who contested in a reserved seat has to prove her/his caste status. Then automatically the Court has to decide the caste status irrespective of competent authority decided the caste status or not, on individually can decide on the basis of material placed on record. In those circumstances, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the caste status of the returned candidate i.e., respondent herein.
37. When question arises regarding the status of the caste of returned candidate (respondent), and where there is a challenge with regard to the caste status of the returned candidate, this Court while deciding the election petition has to decide such fact whether the respondent is a Scheduled Tribe person or not and is entitled to contest for such seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe under Section 5(a) of the R.P. Act. 31
38. In the present case on hand, the caste status of the respondent is specifically challenged in this election petition and contended that respondent is not a Scheduled Tribe and not a qualified candidate to contest in a reserved seat for Scheduled Tribe in 11-Kurupam (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. The main contention of the petitioners is that the respondent is not entitled to contest in a reserved seat for Scheduled Tribe and was declared as member of the legislative assembly for the said constituency, which is contrary to law and thereby, the election of the respondent shall be declared as void.
39. The case of the respondent in the written statement as well in her testimony is that her father Sri P.Narayana Murthy, her mother Gouri Parvathi belongs to Scheduled Tribe and her parents was blessed with three daughters and one son and all her siblings along with her were all born at Doramamidi Village, Buttaigudem Mandal of West Godavari District. Herself and her siblings pursued primary and higher education at 32 Doramamidi village and also secured job in Schedule Tribe quota based on her caste status. She further testified that since her birth she was brought up in and around tribal areas, the 'competent authority' after thorough enquiry in the village of her ancestors confirmed that she belongs to ST 'Konda Dora' community and then only issued caste certificate in her favour and her family members.
40. More so, one Regu Maheswara Rao had initially challenged the genuinety and correctness of her caste status before the District Collector, Eluru of West Godavari District and upon such challenge, an enquiry was called for by the District Level Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as "DLSC") on her social status and the DLSC has gone into the root of the matter to ascertain the origin of her family and after verification of the register from M.P.P. Elementary School, T.D.Parapuram, Palakonda Mandal of Srikakulam District, where her father Sri P.Narayana Murthy studied, found that prior to the admission of her father in the said school, his elder 33 brother Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was admitted in the said school on 30.06.1956, against his admission, his caste was recorded as "Konda Dora" and religion to be Hindu. Having been convinced with the said entry, the DLSC resolved to conclude that her roots were genuinely from "Konda Dora"
ST Community and submitted a report to the District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru.
41. Ex.B.3 is the attested copy of caste certificate, which discloses the caste of the respondent as that of "Konda Dora". As long as Caste Certificate issued to the first respondent is not cancelled or varied, it cannot be said that she does not or ceased to belong to ST community.
42. No material or otherwise is placed on record to show that if any independent enquiry into the validity or otherwise of the Caste Certificate issued to the 1st respondent is undertaken and decided that she does not belong to Schedule Tribe, then, in this Election Petition, if it is taken up, it would result in a parallel exercise, one by the machinery provided for under the 34 Act and the other by this Court. While proceedings under the State Act by the competent authority therein conforms to that Act, an enquiry by this Court would be at the teeth of several provisions of the State Act. Besides, during cross examination of RW1, she consistently states that her father Sri P.Narayana Murthy belongs to "Konda Dora" community and her father intimated that they belongs to "Konda Dora" community. No contra material is placed on record by the petitioners in this petition denying the said statement.
43. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ex.B.3 caste certificate was not conclusive and binding on the proceedings under R.P. Act, because Ex.B.3 document was said to be given for a candidate seeking admission into educational institutions, against the vacancies or, as the case may be, the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backwards Classes and whereas, by securing such employment or admission on the basis of false community certificates the benefits of special 35 provisions made for the advancement of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes in the matter of public employment and educational opportunities are not reaching such Castes, Tribes and the Backward Classes and for that purpose only, the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of issue Community Certificates Act, 1993 was enacted. Therefore, the respondent cannot be relied upon Ex.B.3 document.
44. This Court also perused the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of issue Community Certificates Act, 1993(Act No.16 of 1993). May be in the foreword of the said Act No.16 of 1993 enacted by the Government says, 'to regulate the issue of Community Certificate for the people belongs to such a specific category and to curb/prohibit for producing false community certificates to acquire employment or seats in educational institutions'. Therefore, in order to curb such candidates who produced false certificates, Act No.16 of 1993 was enacted. 36 But, nowhere it is stated in the said Act that it cannot be used for election, even by the petitioners, by placing any evidence that the said certificate cannot be used rather cannot be looked into for Assembly Election. The petitioners did not summon any of the concerned authorities to make believe rather to prove that the respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. If really, the petitioners are seriously challenging the caste certificate of the respondent and the caste certificate relied upon by her needs to be ignored, the petitioners ought to have summoned the concerned to prove that the respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe as contended by them.
45. It is also brought to the notice of this Court through the testimony of respondent (R.W.1) that W.P.No.9475 of 2022 is said to be filed by one Regu Maheswara Rao, T.Rama Rao and one H.Neelakanteswara Rao against Government of Andhra Pradesh, District Collector, District Level Scrutiny Committed and the respondent herein. If really the petitioners are 37 challenging the caste certificate said to be obtained by the respondent vindictively or false document is produced, the petitioners might have been challenged the same by way of writ. But they did not do so.
46. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the status of the caste of the respondent/returned candidate can be looked into and though the caste certificate is challenged, no material is placed on record by the petitioners to doubt it and that in order to comply Section 5 of the R.P. Act, the caste certificate placed on record by the respondent was considered by the returning authority. Whereas, according to the petitioners, the authorities have not properly considered the objection and improperly accepted her nomination by passing order dated 26.03.2019. To buttress the said contention, the petitioners neither placed any material nor any document or evidence to show that the respondent is not a member of notified 38 Scheduled Tribe, and thereby, the Election Returning Officer did not consider their objection.
47. So far as this Court is concerned, the point raised is that earlier the Election Tribunal was constituted under the R.P. Act 43 of 1951, and subsequent to its abolishment, the elections petitions are transferred to the High Court.
48. Furthermore, the High Court hearing an election petition is not an "authority" and it remains High Court while trying an election petition under the R.P.Act. Jurisdiction of High Court to try an election petition is an extension of original jurisdiction of High Court to hear and decide election disputes. Inherent power of High Court is not taken away when election disputes are adjudicated as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mairembam Prithviraj v. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh8. In view of having power vested, this Court has jurisdiction directly or incidentally to declare the caste status 8(2017) 2 SCC 487 39 of the respondent. Thus, these issues are answered accordingly.
49. ISSUE No.3:
Whether the respondent is a member of the Scheduled Tribe called 'Konda Dora'?
50. The core issue in the present election petition is with regard to caste status of the respondent. To fortify their case, the 2nd petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.4 and A.7. He reiterated the averments of the petition in his affidavit.
51. Ex.A.1 is the registration extract of the sale deed dated 29.02.1956, based on which, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in Ex.A.1 registration extract, it is mentioned that the father of the respondent belongs to Konda caste and the same was not challenged by the respondent. On perusal of Ex.A.1, it is the transaction between one Jogamma and Pamula Seetharamadasu and his sons. In the said document it is mentioned that they are residents of Palakonda Thalavaram Dari Parapuram and belongs to 'Konda 40 kulam'. But the said sale deed is not a criteria to decide the caste status of the respondent as it is not an authenticated document to rely upon and decide the caste status of the respondent.
52. However, P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.A.7 extract of the Admission and Withdrawal Register of the M.P.P. Elementary School, T.D.Parapuram, Palakonda Mandal, wherein, it was mentioned that Sri Pamula Narayana Murthy, S/o.Seethamdasu is resident of Parapuram, and he was admitted in school on 20.06.1960 and that in the column of caste it was mentioned as "Konda". Even in Ex.A.8, which was marked through R.W.1 during cross examination, it is mentioned against the name of Mohanadasu Gandhi that he is resident of Parapuram, in the column of caste "Konda" as well in Ex.A.9, which was also marked through R.W.1 during cross examination, it is mentioned against the name of Vivekananda, S/o.Seethamdasu, resident of Parapuram, in the column of caste, it is mentioned as "Konda". But, the said documents 41 relied on by the petitioners itself is itself is not sufficient to say that the respondent is not a member of the scheduled Tribe. Because the above-mentioned names in Exs.A.7 to A.9 against the column of caste are not testified that they do not belong to schedule Tribe community or other than the caste of schedule Tribe.
53. During cross examination of P.W.1, he testified that he is not acquainted personally with the family members of the respondent. It is true that as per Ex.A.3 copy of Form 21-E result of selection, he is in the fifth position and got less than the NOTA votes. Except the above self-interested and bare testimony of P.W.1, no substantial material was produced by him to fortify their case.
54. Even on perusal of Ex.A.5 extract of Census of India, 1951 produced by P.W.2 Director of Census Operations Tamilnadu, at page No.5 of Ex.A.5, the caste 'Konda' is mentioned in the Glossary of Caste Names of Srikakulam District and the same is admitted by P.W.2. It is also evident in 42 the said page of Ex.A.5 that the caste 'Konda Dora' is also there in the Glossary of Caste Names of Srikakulam District. Thereby, the castes 'Konda' as well 'Konda Dora' are available in the Glossary of Caste Names of Srikakulam District. It is not in dispute that no material was placed on record; to support of the pleading 'Konda' is not included in schedule Tribe or even no document is filed by the petitioners to show that 'Konda' is not included in the schedule tribe. On perusal of Ex.A.5 at page No.5 it is categorical that the word Konda, Konda Dora, Konda Chencu, Konda Gudiya, Konda Mangali and Konda Raju are backward classes in Srikakulam District.
55. The testimony of P.W.3-Deputy Director, ITDA, Tribal Welfare, is to the extent to bring the fact that one Pamula Rama Tulasi, who is sister of the respondent, whose name is mentioned in Ex.A.6 attested copy of the proceedings in R.C.No.A5/07/2014, dated 28.05.2014, was not selected to the post of teacher. He further testified that her candidature was rejected for the reason mentioned in the said document that 43 the candidate had produced a certificate that she belongs to 'Konda Dora' community, but there are no people who belong to 'Konda Dora' Community in West Godavari District. He further testified that it is not mentioned in Ex.A.6 that the candidate did not produce the 'Local Area Certificate". The Local Area Certificate is only useful for determining the local residence of the applicant and not for determining the caste status.
56. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.3 categorically shows that the candidature of said Pamula Rama Tulasi was rejected only due to non-production of 'Local Area Certificate'. Because of rejection of her candidate for the said reason, the caste status of either Pamula Rama Tulasi or respondent herein cannot be decided. Thereby, the testimony of P.W.3 as well Ex.A.6 is of no use to prove the case of the petitioners in any way.
57. In view of the above discussion, it is in vivid terms that the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and documents relied upon by 44 the petitioners shows that there are 'Konda' as well 'Konda Dora' castes available in the Glossary of Caste Names of Srikakulam District who belongs to schedule Tribe and the ancestors of respondent are permanent residents of said area. But they are no way related to denying the caste status claimed by the respondent.
58. On the other hand, to prove her caste status as claimed, the respondent got herself examined as R.W.1 and exhibited Exs.B.1 to B.11. In her chief examination, she reiterated her counter averments and stated that her forefathers hailed from T.D.Parapuram Village, Palakonda mandal of Srikakulam District and they belong to S.T. 'Konda Dora' Community. Her primary, secondary and higher education was pursued from Tribal Welfare Schools and Institutions only. They also used to celebrate festival of 'Konda Dora' Tribe community as 'Pilli Pandaga'. After completion of education, her father joined in ITDA Engineering Division at Buttaigudem in ST quota in the year, 1977 as Head Mazdoor. Later he was promoted as 45 teacher under ST quota and worked in the said position in Tribal Welfare Residential School. It is further contended that R.W.1 and her siblings were born at Doramamidi Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District after her father migrated from T.D.Parapuram Village, Palakonda Mandal of Srikakulam District. She also secured job under ST quota in Tribal Welfare School at Buttaigudem. The competent authority after through enquiry in the village of their ancestors, confirmed that she belongs to ST 'Konda Dora' community and issued caste/nativity certificates in her favour.
59. On the complaint of one Regu Maheswara Rao, due to political vendetta, the DLSC after verifying the extract of admission register of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, who said to be senior paternal uncle of the respondent/ who is her father's elder brother, found that he belongs to ST 'Konda Dora' community and submitted report to the District Collector, Eluru of West Godavari District. Thereafter the District Collector, Eluru vide proceedings in Roc.No.C2/e- 46 1739206/2019, dated 09.05.2021 declared that her caste is genuine and authentic. The order of the District collector was appealed before the Government by the said Maheswara Rao and the appellate authority vide G.O.Ms.No.6, Social Welfare (TW CB-II) Department, dated 02.02.2022, upheld the orders of the District Collector. Thereby, the present election petition requires no further adjudication on the caste status of the respondent and the same is liable for dismissal.
60. During cross examination of R.W.1, Ex.A.8 certified copy of Admissions and Withdrawals was marked, she testified that entry at Serial No.30 name mentioned as Mohan Das Gandhi and at column No.12 caste mentioned as 'Konda'. She also testified that she enquired with her father Narayana Murthy regarding her senior paternal uncle's document, he told her that they belong to 'Konda Dora' community and he is being minor by that time, he does not know whether it is mentioned as 'Konda Dora' or 'Konda' and since the column is also small, it might be mentioned as 'Konda' only. In the same lines, 47 Exs.A.9 and A.10 pertaining to Pamula Vivekananda and Pamula Anasuya, who are junior paternal uncle and paternal aunt of R.W.1 respectively and they are confronted through her. In all, nothing incriminating material was elicited during cross examination of R.W.1 to disbelieve her testimony to prove her caste status.
61. Moreover, on perusal of Ex.B.1 Transfer Certificate, it is evident that she completed her 10th class in Tribal Welfare High School, Doramamidi village of West Godavari District. Ex.B.1 was enclosed with Migration Certificate issued by Tahsildar Palakonada Mandal of Srikakulam District, dated 20.07.2008 stating that her father migrated from T.D.Parapuram Village of Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District to Doramamidi Village of Buttaigudem Mandal of West Godavari District and he belongs to ST 'Konda Dora'.
62. On perusal of Ex.B.3 caste certificate of Pamula Narayana Murthy, who is father of respondent, it reveals that he belongs to ST Konda Dora Tribe community. The Exs.B.4, 48 B.7, B.5 and B.9 attested copies of admission register and Transfer certificate of Pamula Venkata Rama Tulasi, Transfer Certificate of Pamula Sujana and Transfer Certificate of Pamula Prudvi Raj, who are sisters and brother of respondent, respectively shows that they studied in Tribal Welfare School in Doramamidi Village.
63. More so, on perusal of Exs.B.6, B.8 and B.10 attested copies of Community, Nativity and Birth Certificates of Pamula Venkata Rama Tulasi, Pamula Sujana and Pamula Prudvi Raj respectively shows that they belong to 'Konda Dora' community, which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution of (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950, SCs, STs list (Modification) order 1956 and S.Ts. (Amendment) Act, 1956 as amended from time to time and they are native of Doramamidi Village, Buttaigudem Mandal of West Godavari District.
64. Coming to Ex.B.11 Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate of respondent, it shows that she belongs to Konda Dora-ST community and native of Doramamidi Village 49 of Buttaigudem Mandal. As per the testimony of R.W.1, by the year 2001, Ex.B.1 was issued to her and by that time, there is a format for caste certificate and in that format original of Ex.B.11 was issued to her. It is also admitted by R.W.1 that Ex.B.3 caste certificate was given to her father in year, 2008. It is also testified by R.W.1 during her cross examination that since they were not born in schedule area, the then A.P.O., Social Welfare Department refused the appointment of her sister and that schedule area certificate and caste certificate are two different concepts.
65. Now, it is relevant to refer the testimony of R.W.4, who is Headmaster of Sri Kakarala Chandrasekhar Rao Zilla Parishad High School, Pedapadu Village, Eluru District. He produced Ex.X.3 original Transfer Certificate bearing No.7870234 relating to Pamula Narayana Murthy, wherein at column No.5, it is mentioned as 'S.T. Girijan'. However, on perusal of testimony of R.W.5, who is Administrative Officer, ITDA, K.R.Puram of Eluru District, there are three service volumes 50 relating to P.Narayana Murthy, Ex.X.4 is the relevant page in second volume of original Service Register of P.Narayana Murthy, wherein it is mentioned as caste: 'Konda Dora', certificate issued by M.R.O. Buttaigudem (495/89, dated 24.11.1989), which was separately written and nothing was elicited to disbelieve Exs.X.3 to X.5. As per the testimony of R.Ws.4 and 5 coupled with Exs.X.3 to X.5 and B.3 it can be categorically held that the father of respondent belongs to ST community.
66. Furthermore, R.W.3-Project Officer, ITDA produced certified copy of proceedings in R.C.No.T9/357/ITDA, dated 30.04.2021 testifying that his predecessor had examined the documents of father of the respondent prior to the year 2000, thereafter, proceedings under Ex.X.2 was issued. Except to put suggestion that while issuing Ex.X.2 his predecessor in officer before whom the documents were filed, which were not properly verified, and Ex.X.2 was issued based on the recent 51 origin documents, nothing was elicited to disbelieve the claim of the respondent.
67. Even on perusal of Ex.X.2, which is enclosed with several documents submitted by the respondent, shows that on the instructions of District Collector and Magistrate, West Godavari District, on the representation made by one Regu Maheswara Rao and R.Mani Singh, the Project Officer as a Chairman along with The Deputy Director (Social Welfare), Eluru, The Deputy Director (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram and The Deputy Director (BC.Wel) Eluru as members, conducted detailed enquiry to determine the caste status of the respondent, concluded that the respondent belongs to "Konda Dora" ST community and the community claim of her is genuine. Further, as per Ex.X.2, on the request made by DLSA, the respondent had produced several document twenty in number to prove her claim and made detailed affidavit about her origin.
52
68. It is also the contention of petitioners therein that the father of the respondent does not belong to 'Konda Dora' community and in his school admission register it is mentioned only as 'Konda', thereby, the respondent herein does not belong to 'Konda Dora' community.
69. On that, the DLSC called for the admission register from Elementary School, TD Parapuram, Palakonda Mandal of Srikakulam District, in which, the name of Narayana Murthy reflects and it is found that prior to admission of Narayana Murthy into the said school, his elder brother by name Ramakrishna Paramahamsa got admitted in same school, vide admission number 34 dated 30.06.1956 and his caste was recorded as Hindu "Konda Dora", which clearly shows that he belongs to "Konda Dora" ST community. The DLSC also called for enquiry with the Revenue Authorities from Palakonda and the RDO, Palakonda made an enquiry and submitted that Pamula Narayan Murthy belongs to "Konda Dora" community (ST). Thereby, basing on the overall material produced by the 53 respondent before the authority and the reports submitted by the authorities, the DLSC made a conclusion that the respondent belongs to "Konda Dora" ST community and no material is placed on record to disbelieve the said enquiry report made by DLSC.
70. Further, R.W.2-District Collector, Eluru produced Ex.X.2 certified copy of proceedings in R.C.No.C2/e-1739206/2019, dated 10.05.2021 and he testified during cross examination that if one person intended to obtain a caste certificate, he has to apply through Online by Mee-Seva/now called as Village Ward Secretariat; thereafter the said application will be forwarded to V.R.O for local enquiry and verification of supporting documents, thereafter he will submit report to Revenue Inspector, after his verification, it will be forwarded to Tahsildar, who in-turn will issue the caste certificate. He further admitted that if the competent authority feels further enquiry is necessary, he shall then examine the school records, birth registration certificate, if any, and also examine the 54 parent/guardian or applicant in relation to his/her/their community as per Rule 5(b) of A.P. (Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and Backwards Classes) issue to Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997. He also testified that a person belongs to one District, he may also approach another District for Caste Certificate if they are residing in that District. His predecessor in officer by name Karthikeya Misra after perusing the enquiry report by DLSC, issued the said proceedings. In the entire cross examination, nothing incriminating was elicited to deny the said proceedings.
71. In that view, even though in the pleadings, the petitioners have categorically taken a plea that the respondent ought not to have secured the caste certificate as "Konda Dora"
either from West Godavari District or Srikakulam District. But there is no proof to say that the respondent does not belong to "Konda Dora" Tribe and Ex.B.11 is an invalid document, and in view of the categorical testimony of R.W.2, the respondent can obtain caste certificate, where she is residing i.e., 55 Buttaigudem of West Godavari District. More so, in support of the above allegation, no material was placed on record by the petitioners, except taking the said plea.
72. Now, on perusal of Ex.X.1, which is enclosed with several documents, as per the instructions, the Chairmen & Project Officer, DLSC, ITDA, KR.Puram has called for hearing and conducted enquiry on the social status of the respondent and submitted report stating that the scrutiny committee unanimously finalized basing on its findings that the community claim of respondent is genuine and belongs to "Konda Dora" ST Community. Basing on the said findings and conclusion made by DL.SC and in exercise of powers conferred under sub rule 7 of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh (SC/ST & BC) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997 (G.O.Ms.NO.58, Social Welfare (J), dt: 12th May 1997), it is confirmed by the then District Collector that the Community claim of the respondent is genuine one. It is not in dispute that the said proceedings were also upheld by the 56 Government in the appeal preferred by one Regu Maheswara Rao.
73. Having regard to the above discussion, it is not a matter in issue to decide whether "Konda" is a community belongs to schedule Tribe, when the respondent categorically proved her caste status as "Konda Dora" ST community, and the petitioners herein failed to discard the claim made by the respondent regarding her caste status in anyway. However, as discussed supra, it is evident from Ex.A.5, the caste 'Konda' is also a ST community in and around Srikakulam District. Thus, this issue is answered in favour of respondent and against the petitioners.
74. ISSUE NOs.1 & 2:
i).Whether the respondent's nomination was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer?
ii).Whether the said improper acceptance of nomination materially affected the result of the election?57
75. It is the foremost contention of the petitioners that the authorities have not properly considered the objection and improperly accepted her nomination by passing order, dated 26.03.2019. As discussed supra, the petitioners neither placed any material nor any document or evidence to say that the respondent is not a member of notified Scheduled Tribe, thereby, the Election Returning Officer was not considered their objection. Even, in view of the findings arrived in issue No.3, it can be categorical held that the respondent belongs to ST community and thereby, the Returning Officer rightly accepted the nomination of the respondent and which does not materially affect the result of the election. Thus, these issues are answered accordingly.
76. ISSUE No.6: To what relief?
In view of the findings in Issue Nos.1 to 3, the election petition is devoid of merits to declare that the election of the respondent as Member of 11-Kurupam (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency, Vijayanagaram District, Andhra 58 Pradesh held on 11.04.2019 be null and void, and even, as discussed from the very beginning of the appreciation of the issues in the matter, the term of Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly elected in 2019 itself has expired, and a fresh election was being held and a new Legislative Assembly was elected in 2024, the election petition has to fail as infructuous. Viewing from any angle, the present election petition is liable for dismissal.
77. In the result, the Election Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 15.10.2024 Krs APPENDIX OF EVIDENE WITNESSES EXAMINED For Petitioners: For Respondent:
P.W.1: Nimmaka Jayaraju R.W.1: Pamula Puspa Sreevani P.W.2: Sajjan Singh R.Chowhan R.W.2: Prasanna Venkatesh P.W.3: P.Venkata Swamy Naidu Venkataraman R.W.3: Mallavarapu Surya Teja 59 R.W.4: Venkateswara Rao R.W.5: P.Venkata Ramarao DOCUMENTS MARKED On behalf of the Petitioners:
Ex.A.1: Is the Certified Copy of a Sale Deed bearing No.573 of 1956, dated 29.02.1956, issued by the Sub-Registrar, Palakonda.
Ex.A.2: Is the copy of the Order in R.C.No.191/2019/5a(Ele), dated 26.03.2019, passed by the Returning Officer. Ex.A.3: Is the copy of the detailed result of the election issued by the Returning Officer, dated 23.05.2019. Ex.A.4: Is the copy of Community Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate of the respondent (The same is marked subject to objection on admissibility as it is issued under the R.T.I Act and is not a certified copy). Ex.A.5: Is the document produced by P.W.2 and at page No.5, the caste 'Konda' is mentioned the Glossary of Caste Name in Srikakulam District.
Ex.A.6:Is the attested copy of proceedings in R.C.No.A5/07/2014, dated 28.05.2014.
Ex.A.7: Is the extract of the Admissions and Withdrawals Register of M.P.P. Elementary School, T.D.Parapuram, Palakonda Mandal of Parvathipuram Manyam District. Ex.A.8: Is the certified copy of Register of Admissions and Withdrawals entry at Serial No.30 name mentioned as 60 Mohan Das Gandhi and at column No.12 caste Mentioned as 'Konda'.
Ex.A.9: Is the Register of Admissions and Withdrawals and the relevant entry is at serial No.72 name Pamula Vivekananda and at caste column No.12, it is mentioned as 'Konda'.
Ex.A.10: Is the Register of Admissions and Withdrawals and the relevant entry is at serial No.98 name Pamula Anasuya and at caste column No.12, it is mentioned as 'Konda'.
On behalf of the Respondent:
Ex.B.1: Is the attested copy of Transfer Certificate of R.W.1 (marked subject to objection) Ex.B.2: Is the copy of G.O.Ms.No.6, Social Welfare (TW.CV-2) Department, dated 02.02.2022.
Ex.B.3: Is the attested copy of Caste Certificate (marked subject to objection) Ex.B.4: Is the attested copy of Admissions Register (marked subject to objection) Ex.B.5: Is the attested copy of Transfer Certificate of Pamula Sujana (marked subject to objection) Ex.B.6: Is the attested copy of Community, Nativity and Birth Certificate of Pamula Venkata Rama Tulasi (marked subject to objection) Ex.B.7: Is the attested copy of Transfer Certificate of Pamula Venkata Rama Tulasi (marked subject to objection) 61 Ex.B.8: Is the attested copy of Community, Nativity and Birth Certificate of Pamula Sujana (marked subject to objection) Ex.B.9: Is the attested copy of Transfer Copy of Pamula Prudvi Raj (marked subject to objection) Ex.B.10: Is the attested copy of Community, Nativity and Birth Certificate of Pamula Prudvi Raj (marked subject to objection) Ex.B.11: Is the Photostat copy of caste certificate of R.W.1 issued in the year 2001.
Documents marked through the Witnesses summoned by the Court:
Ex.X.1: Is the certified copy of proceedings in R.C.No.C2/3- 1739206/2019, dated 10.05.2021 (compared the same with original) Ex.X.2: Is the certified copy of proceedings in R.C.No.T9/357/ITDA, dated 30.04.2021 (compared the same with original) Ex.X.3: Is the original Transfer Certificate bearing No.787024 relating to Pamula Narayana Murthy. Ex.X.4: Is the relevant page in second volume of original Service Register of Pamula Narayana Murthy. Ex.X.5: Is the entire volume No.1 of Service Register of Pamula Narayana Murthy.62
Ex.X.6: Is the stabled document in volume No.1 of Service Register of Pamula Narayana Murthy, dated 04.05.2011 i.e., proceedings of Deputy Director (T.W.), K.R.Puram, West Godavari and it was issued by the then Deputy Director by name Smt.P.Savithri with R.C.No.A4/500/2011, dated 04.05.2011.
____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 15.10.2024 Krs 63 59 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS ELECTION PETITION NO.20 OF 2019 ( ORDER ) DATE: 15.10.2024 Krs