Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Arikala Narasa Reddy vs Venkat Ram Reddy Reddygari on 17 April, 2014
N IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 448-449 OF 2014
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5710-5711 OF 2012
Arikala Narasa Reddy .... Petitioner
Versus
Venkat Ram Reddy Reddygari & Anr. .... Respondents
With
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 450-451 OF 2014
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5710-5711 OF 2012
Venkat Ram Reddy Reddygari .... Petitioner
Versus
Arikala Narasa Reddy & Anr. .... Respondents
ORDER
1. The above-mentioned Review Petitions have been filed by the contesting parties against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.2.2014 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5710-11 of 2012 by which this Court has decided the Election Petition by draw of lots after reaching the conclusion that both the candidates have secured equal votes. 1
2. Before proceeding with the case, it may be pertinent to mention here that before pronouncement of the judgment, this Court had made it clear that in case the Review Petition is filed by either of the parties, it will be heard in open court. As both the parties have filed the Review Petitions, we have heard them together in open court and not as per the rules of the court by circulation and it is not a case where the Review Petition has to be decided directly in accordance with the requirement of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. The election to the 18-Nizamabad Local Authority Constituency of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council was held on 30.3.2009 and out of 706 total votes, 701 votes were cast. The counting of votes took place on 2.4.2009 and at the initial counting, both the candidates secured equal number of votes i.e. 336 votes and 29 votes were found invalid. An application for recounting of votes was filed before the Returning Officer and on recounting, Arikala Narasa Reddy, appellant in the Civil Appeal, secured 336 votes and the respondent no. 1 in the appeal, secured 335 votes and 3 votes were rejected as invalid and, thus, the appellant before us was declared to be a successful candidate by margin of one vote. The defeated candidate had filed the Election Petition in the High Court and in response thereof, the appellant also filed a Recrimination Petition. However, after considering all the votes, the High Court declared the respondent no. 1 as a successful candidate and reversed the declaration of the result as made by the Returning Officer. 2
4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal challenging the said judgment and order before this Court and this Court came to the conclusion that the matter ought to have been considered only in light of the pleadings taken in the Election Petition and that the matter was to be restricted to only 4 votes i.e. Exs. X-1, X-2, X-3 & Ex.Y-13 and nothing further and in case the result is altered, then the Recrimination Petition should have been tried. Thus, this Court proceeded partially ignoring the judgment of the High Court and decided the matter afresh appreciating the entire evidence on record restricting the case to the pleadings in the Election Petition and the Recrimination Petition and as according to this Court, both the candidates had secured same votes and in view of the statutory provisions, the draw of lots was carried out whereby the appellant was declared as a successful candidate vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.2.2014.
Hence, these Review Petitions by both the parties.
5. So far as the Review Petition filed by the respondent no.1 is concerned, it remains limited to the 3 votes i.e. Ex.X-1, Ex.X-2 and Ex.X-3 which had been found to be valid. We had examined the documents and came to the conclusion that Ex.X-1 was a valid vote and must be counted for the respondent no. 1. So far as Ex.X-2 is concerned, the court came to the same result that it can be considered to be a valid vote in favour of respondent no.
1. So far as Ex.X-3 is concerned, it has been written on the ballot that the said vote is in favour of the respondent no.1. Therefore, it was held to be invalid. So far as Ex.Y-13 is concerned as the voter has signed on the ballot 3 in a manner that he could be identified, it was held to be invalid. However, while making the calculations, it appears that inadvertently there had been a mistake in counting of the votes and in fact the respondent no.1, according to our calculations, had secured 335+1+1= 337 votes and the appellant could secure only 336 votes. Therefore, in case the calculations restricting to the pleadings of the Election Petition are to be taken into account, the respondent no. 1 must succeed by one vote. In view of the fact that the result of the election as declared by the Returning Officer is materially altered, the Recrimination Petition has to be gone into.
6. The Recrimination Petition was based on four grounds which were taken into consideration and were rejected. However, on reconsideration today in open court and after hearing the arguments of the counsel, we are of the view that Ex.P-19 has wrongly been accepted by us as a valid vote and instead of writing the figure ‘1’, the voter has marked it as ‘7’ and though it had been held in favour of the respondent no.1, it ought to have been declared as an invalid vote.
7. At this juncture, it has been submitted by Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, that while deciding the appeal, this Court had recording a finding that none of the grounds taken in the Recrimination Petition had any substance and all of them stood rejected. In a Review Petition, under no circumstance taking a contrary view is permissible. The scope of the Review Petition does not extend to the extent that the court can substitute its view and change its finding of facts. There is 4 no doubt to the settled legal proposition as submitted by Shri P.P. Rao but the court is also not oblivious of the fact that courts are meant to do justice and this Court has been conferred a special responsibility to do complete justice and in case inadvertently or by mistake, we have recorded a wrong finding, we should not hesitate to change the same, as it would amount to perpetuating an illegality, which in fact resulted in miscarriage of justice. Thus, we are of the view that the vote marked as Ex.P-19 should be declared to be invalid and rest of the grounds of the Recrimination Petition are not worth reconsideration.
8. As a result thereof, both the candidates have secured equal votes and in view thereof, the result is to be declared on the basis of draw of lots which was initially done on 4.2.2014 by which the appellant had succeeded. Thus, in view of above, both the Review Petitions stand disposed of without recalling of the judgment dated 4.2.2014 which does not require any change whatsoever except as expressed hereinabove. With the aforesaid observations, both the Review Petitions stand dispose of.
....................................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) ...................................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR) ...................................J. (M.Y. EQBAL) New Delhi, April 17, 2014.
5
ITEM NO.1A Court No.4 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REVIEW PETITION (C) NO(s). 448-449 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL
NO(s). 5710-5711/2012
ARIKALA NARASA REDDY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VENKAT RAM REDDY REDDYGARI & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
REVIEW PETITION(C) NO(s). 450-451 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5710-5711/2012 Date: 17/04/2014 These Petitions were called on for pronouncement of orders today.
For Petitioner(s) R.P.(C) No. 448-449/2014 Mr. Guntur Prabhakar,Adv. R.P.(C) No. 450-451/2014 Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Akshat KUlshrestha, Adv.
Mr. Swarnendu Chaterjee, Adv.
Mr. Surojit Bhaduri, Adv.
Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
Ms. Praseena E. Joseph, Adv.
M/s. Lawyer’s Knit & Co.
For Respondent(s) Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan pronounced the order of the Bench comprising of His Lordship, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
The review petitions stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (M.S. NEGI)
Court Master Assistant Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file)
6
7