Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Patlolla Ram Reddy vs P. Gnan Reddy And Ors. on 2 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)ALT555
ORDER Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.
1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 16-7-2002 in I.A.No. 158 of 2001 in O.P.No. 1 of 2001 on the file of Election Tribunal (Junior Civil Judge), at Narayankhed under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 issued in G.O.Ms.No. 111, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development and Relief (Elec. III) Department, dated 3-3-1995.
2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:
The revision petitioner was declared as elected as Sarpanch of Abbenda Gram Panchayat in Narayankhed Mandal in the elections held on 20-08-2001. First respondent is one of the unsuccessful candidates in the said election. First respondent filed a petition under the provisions of the above Rules before the Election Tribunal (Junior Civil Judge) at Narayankhed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) To set aside the election of the respondent No. 1 as null and void, deleting the election process held on 20-8-2001;
(ii) The votes illegally polled who are dead and whose votes are cast or invalid votes have got to be deleted to whomsoever they are counted;
(iii) To direct for recounting of votes secured by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 for the post of Sarpanch of Abbenda Gram Panchayat, Mandal Narayankhed, District Medak and declare the petitioner as elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Abbenda in the event of the petitioner securing more votes than that of the respondent No. 1;
(iv) Costs of election petition and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court (Tribunal).
It is not in dispute that besides the petitioner and the first respondent, two other persons also contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. The other persons who contested the election are not impleaded as respondents in the Election Petition No. 1 of 2001. In view of that fact, invoking to his aid the provision in Rule 4 of the Rules, the revision petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 158 of 2001 before the Election Tribunal seeking the relief of dismissing the Election Petition on the sole ground that the two other persons who contested the election are not impleaded as respondents in the said Election Petition. The said petition was contested by the first respondent herein. By order dated 16-7-2002 the Election Tribunal dismissed the said petition. A decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Anjamma v. S. Pushpamma, (D.B.) was cited before the Election Tribunal. The Election Tribunal held as follows in the impugned order.
"He submitted a citation (D.B.) Anjamma v. S. Pushpamma and Anr. The citation is not relevant as in the case in hand is that other defeated candidates have got meagre votes than the petitioner and respondent. Hence, there is no complete cause of action against other defeated candidates. Hence it is not proper to say that the non-joinder of all other candidates, the main O.P. should be dismissed".
Aggrieved by the said order of the Election Tribunal, the elected candidate filed this revision petition.
3. For the proper appreciation and just disposal of this revision petition, it is necessary to extract the provision in Rule 4 of the Rules. It reads as follows:
"4(i). If the irregularities alleged in the petition are likely to affect the validity of the election of more than one returned candidate, the petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all such returned candidates".
(ii) The petitioner may, if he so desires, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidates or of all or any of the returned candidates, as the case may be, claim a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected in which case he shall join as respondents to his petition all other candidates who were nominated for the election but who had not withdrawn before the polling.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that relief of declaration that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Abbenda Gram Panchayat was sought for by the first respondent and as two other persons who contested the election for the said post are not impleaded, the Election Petition is liable to be summarily dismissed. He strongly relied upon the decision of this court cited before the Tribunal in support of his contention. On the other hand the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that relief of declaring the first respondent herein as elected Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat is a consequential relief after the votes are recounted, and if the first respondent herein was found to have secured more votes than the votes secured by the revision petitioner, the relief of declaration that the first respondent herein is elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned necessarily follows and therefore the other two persons who contested the election need not be made parties to the Election Petition and their non-joinder is not fatal to his case. After considering the respective contentions of both the parties, I find no substance in the contentions advanced by either of the learned counsel. I propose to give reasons for my conclusions hereunder.
4. A Division Bench of this Court in the above decision in para 27 of its judgment held as follows:
"Rule 4(ii) of the Rules, 1995, as extracted above, clearly postulates that the election petitioner if so desires in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidates and claim a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected in which case he shall join as respondents to his petition all other candidates. The said rule specifically says unless the election petitioner impleaded all the candidates who contested the election he cannot be declared as elected in the absence of such parties. Significantly though when the respondent impleaded other contesting candidates to the election petition but the advocate who representing her filed a memo withdrawing the election petition against the other contested candidate. In view of the infirmity, the first respondent is not entitled to any declaration to declare her elected as Sarpanch of Alwanpalli village. The Tribunal below committed an illegality in declaring the first respondent as duly elected candidate".
Therefore, in view of the above principle of law, it is clear that if all the other persons who contested the election are not made parties to the Election petition, as Rule 4 is a mandatory provision, no declaration can be given that any person other than the elected candidate is the Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. That is the principle which emerges out from a careful reading of Rule 4 of the Rules. The other candidates need not be joined as respondents to the Election Petition if the election petitioner does not intend to claim the relief that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected.
5. In view thereof, as two other candidates who contested the election are not made parties to the Election Petition by the first respondent herein, the Election Tribunal cannot declare that the first respondent was duly elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat as the two other contesting parties are not joined as respondents in the Election Petition. If such a relief was asked for, it does not mean that the entire Election Petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. If the Election Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there are any irregularities in the conduct of election or if the revision petitioner did not secure highest number of votes in the election after recount, the Election Tribunal is at liberty to set aside the election of the revision petitioner. However, the Election Tribunal is not entitled to grant the other relief asked for in the Election Petition, namely, that the first respondent herein was duly elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, even if after recount of the votes, it was found that he secured more votes than the votes polled by the revision petitioner herein. That is the effect of legal provision in Rule 4 of the Rules. In the matter decided by the Division Bench in the above decision, a declaration was given that the election of the revision petitioner therein was void and a further declaration was given that the first respondent in the revision petition was elected as Sarpanch of the village. In that context this court held that in view of the above infirmity, the first respondent is not entitled to the relief to declare her as elected as Sarpanch of Alwanpalli village. Therefore, in the present Election Petition also as the other two persons who contested the election are not joined as respondents to the Election Petition, the Election Tribunal shall not consider and grant one of the reliefs asked for by the petitioner in the election petition, namely, that he was elected as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. In my considered opinion, the Election Petition as far as it relates to the said relief asked for by the first respondent herein is not sustainable. The Election Tribunal is bound to give a finding whether the election of the revision petitioner herein as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is void or not. The Election Tribunal shall not consider and decide the other relief asked for by the first respondent herein. I am unable to agree with the view expressed by the Election Tribunal that as the other two candidates secured meagre votes, there is no complete cause of action against the other defeated candidates. I am unable to understand what the Tribunal wants to convey by the above observations. The above observations convey no sense or meaning. The above observations are set aside. Subject to the above observations, I find no merits in the present revision petition.
6. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The Election Tribunal is directed to proceed forthwith with the trial in the Election Petition and dispose it of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order keeping in view the observations made by this court in the course of this order. No costs.