Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (11) TMI 617

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction was challenged by first respondent in E.O.P. No. 22 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Anakapalli. The only ground on which the election of the petitioner was challenged is that the votes in Booth No. 5 at Serial Nos. 792 and 793 of Lemarthi Agraharam Village are also registered voters of Edulapaka Bonangi Village at Serial Nos. 981 and 982 of the voters list of the said village, and that those two voters having voted in both Gram Panchayat Elections those two votes are invalid votes. The petitioner herein opposed the election petition inter alia contending that he is not aware whether the two voters who allegedly are registered voters of another village are voted in favour of petit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ting the vote of P.W.4 and his wife as invalid. Secondly, he contends that the order of the learned Tribunal declaring first respondent's election is vitiated, as first respondent did not specifically ask for any such relief. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act and Rules 13 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (hereafter called, the Rules). Learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K. Sundara Rao v. V. Raghava Rao 1983 (2) An.WR 412 (DB). 4. Learned Counsel for first respondent Sri Upendra, representing Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, opposed the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll for any Gram Panchayat more than once. (4) If, in any case a question arises as to whether a person is ordinarily resident in a village at any relevant time, the question shall be determined with reference to all the facts of the case by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation :-The term ordinarily resident shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Section 14-C(6) and (7) were in the following terms 14-C(6) Every person whose name appears in the part of the electoral roll relating to a ward shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act be entitled to vote at any election which takes place in that ward while the electoral roll remains .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... imilar terms as that of Section 14-B(2) of the 1964 Act. However, Section 11(6) extracted hereunder is in pari materia with Section 14-C(7) of the 1964 Act 11(6) No person shall vote at an election under this Act in more than one ward or more than once in the same ward and if he does so, all his votes shall be invalid. 9. To my mind when the provision is in pari materia the interpretation placed by a Court of record even with reference to repealed Act is a precedent binding and all authorities while interpreting an amended provision. There is no reason warranting any deviation from the law laid down by this Court in K. Sundara Rao v. V. Raghava Rao (supra). Therefore, I am of the opinion that what is prohibited is vote by same person .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion has been improperly rejected, and (iv) that the result of the election, insofar as the Returned Candidate is materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination or corrupt practice or improper rejection or the election is vitiated, non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. As per Rule 12(A) of the Rules, if the Election Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the election of the Returned Candidate is vitiated by any of the above grounds, Election Tribunal has no discretion except declare the election of the Returned Candidate as void. It is also within the power of the Election Tribunal under Rule 12(B) to declare the Returned Candidate as disqualified to contest the election under the Act. Rule 13 of the Rules app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates