Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
J. Sai Lakshmi vs District Panchayat Officer And Ors. on 6 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(5)ALT593, AIRONLINE 2002 AP 8
Author: N.V. Ramana
Bench: N.V. Ramana
ORDER N.V. Ramana, J.
1.This writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the official respondents in not responding to the representations of the petitioner as illegal and consequently to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations forthwith.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner contested for the office of Sarpanch, Kolamuru Gram Panchayat in East Godavari district in the elections held on 4-12-2001 in which 4th respondent was declared elected, that then she made an oral representation to respondents 1 to 3 for recounting of the votes, that as no action was taken by respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner made written representations on 14-2-2001 (sic. 2002) and 16-2-2001 (sic. 2002) to respondents 1 and 2 and also the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry requesting to inform as to the actual number of votes polled, the number of votes each candidate got and the number of invalid votes and that so far no action has been taken by respondents 1 to 3; therefore, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the official respondents to dispose of the representations filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner made several representations to respondents 1 to 3 to consider about the discrepancies occurred in the elections held on 4-12-2001 for the office of Sarpanch, no action has been taken so far, thus, the learned counsel is seeking the relief of recounting of votes. He also submits that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can give directions to the official respondents to order recounting of votes and that the remedy provided under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is not an effective remedy and it is a cumbersome and costly procedure. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan, . He also submits that in view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, this Court can set right any irregularity committed by the authorities and can grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.
4. On behalf of the respondents, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that under Section 233 of the Act any elections held under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act shall be called in question only in an election petition and that in view of Rule 12 (d)(iii)(iv) of the Election Tribunal Rules, any dispute with regard to recounting of votes shall be challenged only in an election petition and, therefore, the petitioner has to approach the Election Tribunal constituted for that purpose.
5. Heard the arguments of both sides.
6. Even though the petitioner seeks the relief of the disposal of the representations filed by her, respondents 1 to 3 cannot pass any orders for the simple reason that the issue raised in the said representations touches the election dispute. The proper remedy for the petitioner according to me, is to file an election petition before the competent authority i.e., the Election Tribunal constituted for that purpose. Whether there are any discrepancies in the counting of votes or not is a question of fact, which will be decided by the Election Tribunal only after adducing the evidence and perusing the material on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remedy provided under the Act to invoke the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal is a costly one and it will take considerable time, is not a ground to entertain this writ petition. When a statute provides for an effective alternative remedy, it is not for this Court to give a finding with regard to-an election dispute. It is settled law that this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not decide the questions of fact.
7. The decision in K. Venkatachalam's case (1 supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case as, the question that arose for consideration therein was whether the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare that the appellant therein was not qualified to be member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from Lalgudi Assembly Constituency. In this case, the petitioner is seeking to consider his representations for the irregularities committed in the election; thereby, to direct the respondents to recount the votes, which power the respondents 1 to 3 are not having under the Act. If the respondents are obliged to consider the representations of the petitioner, they ought to have considered them long back. But, as the dispute raised by the petitioner touches the election dispute, they did not consider it.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, this order shall not come in the way of the Election Tribunal in entertaining the election petition, if it is filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. No order as to costs.