- (1.) 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the District Munsif Madhira, sitting as an Election Court and dispoosing of O.P.No.2 of 1981. The present petitioner who contested and lost the election to the Sarpanch of Verrupalem has filed the aforesaid O.P.No.2 of 1981 challenging the declaration made by the Election Authority declaring the 3rd respondent, J.V. Krishna Rao, as having been duly elected as the Sarpanch of Yerrupalem Gram Panchayat in the elections conducted on 29th May, 1981. That election petition filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the election Court, the District Musif, Madhira.
(2.) Nominations for contesting the office of Sarpanch, yerrupalem were filed on 15th May, 1981. The last date for scrutiny was fixed as 16th May, 1981, and the date of with drawl as 19th May, 1981. It was alleged in the election petition that the Election Authority had illegally allowed the 3rd respondent, J.V. Krishna Rao, to contest the elections although he had withdrawn his nomination and also withdraw the deposit amount of Rs.90 made by him." The question really is whether the third respondent withdraw his nomination. Although the election petitioner did not specifically mention the fact in his election petition that the above mentioned third respondent, has filed two nomination papers it is admit ted that the third respondent did in fact file two nominations and paid two fepa. rate deposits and had subsequently withdrawn one of those two nominations keeping another nomination in fect. On the above facts, the election Court has framedthenecessary issues and considered the documents marked by consent of the parties and dismissed the election petition in a rather summary and unsatisfactory way. It is against that judgment that the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Two points have been urged , by Sri Sivarama Sastry, learned Counsel for the Writ petitioner. The first argument of Sri Sivarama Sastry is that the third respondent, viz the successful candidate Krishnarao, has filed two sets of nomination papers contrary to the rule 4 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1978, hereinafter referred" to as 'the election rules ' promulgated by the Governer in G. Q. Ms. No. 130 P. R. (Samithi), dated 2nd February'1978 and that, therefore the presentation of the nomination papers by the third respondent itself is invalid. The second argument of Sri Sivirama Sastry is that the third respendent having presented two sets of nomination papers, had withdrawn on 19th May 1981 from the contest and that as rule 10 (1) of the Election Rules permits only the withdrawal of the Candida, ture of a contesting candidate as different from withdrawal of nomination the third respondent ought not to have been permitted to contest the election, and that, therefore the Election Tribunal had acted illegally in not setting aside the election of the third respondent.;