B LAKSHMIKANTHA RAO Vs. D CHINNA MALLAIAH ALIAS DESINI MALLAIAH
LAWS(APH)-1971-9-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 08,1971

B.LAKSHMIKANTHA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
D.CHINNA MALLAIAH ALIAS DESINI MALLAIAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is an election petition presented under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, praying for a declaration that the election of the 1st re s pondent is void and that the petitioner has been duly elected on the ground that the 1st respondent was disqualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, as he has a subsisting contract with the State Government for the sale of arrack and toddy in the course of his trade or business.
(2.) The material facts are not in dispute and they are as follows : The election to the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly for No. 253 Indurthi Assembly Constituency of Karimnagar Taluk and District was held in the month of February, 1978. The petiiioner and the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 contested in the said elections. The petitioner contested as a Congress-I candidate and secured 20,021 votes and the 1st respondent who contested as a C. P. I. candiate secured 21,735 votes and was declared to have been elected. The 1st respondent was the successful bidder in the auctions held by the Andhra Pradesh State Government regarding the lease of the right to sell liquor in retail for the year 1977-78 in the arrack shop at Bommonapalli and he entered into an agreement with the Government and obtained a licence to sell liquor belonging to the Government during the Excise year commencing from 1st October, 1977 till 30th September, 1978. The 1st respondent was also a successful bidder to sell toddy in the shop at Potlapalli in Karimnagar Taluk for the Excise year 1977-78 and he also executed an agreement in favour of the Government and obtained a licence for the period commencing from 1st October, 1977 to 30th September, 1978. When these two contracts with the Government for the sale of arrack and toddy are subsisting, the 1st respondent is disqualified under section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act to be chosen to fill the seat in the Legislative Assembly and therefore, the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of his nomination. It is further prayed in the petition that as the 1st respondent is disqualified, the votes polled in his favour have to be considered as thrown out votes and the petitioner who was the next to get the highest number of votes, is entitled for a declaration that he has been duly elected.
(3.) The 1st respondent in his counter stated that he does not have any trade or business. He is a member of the Communist Party of India and also a whole time worker. He is elected as the honorary President of the "District Geetha Pamvarla Sanghama." While so, there was a dispute in Bommen- palli village with regard to the lease of the light to sell arrack between one P. Yellayya and Dasina Papayya and both of them chose the 1st respondent as their arbitrator and asked him to have the licence in his name fo mally for the sale of arrack till the dispute is decided. As requested by them, the 1st respondent participated in the auction and was the highest bidder and he entered into an agreement as it was a necessary formality. Similarly in Potlapalli village also there were disputes among the tappers. There were factions among the tappers, one was led by Marka China Venkati and the other by Bongoni Venkataiah Both of them felt that the differences between them may lead to unhealthy competition and permanent bickerings and so they approached the 1st respondent for arbitration. At their request the 1st respondent participated in the auction, and then he was the highest bidder and accordingly obtained the licence and entered into an agreement with the Government. The 1st respondent further asserted that the agreements entered into by him with the Government were not at all in the course of trade or business, but he did so only to settle the disputes between the parties. He further stated that he had not entered into any contract with the Government for the supply of goods to it or for the execution of any works undertaken by the Government and, therefore, he is not disqualified under section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.