NAYINI NARSHIMHA REDDY Vs. K LAXMAN
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-105
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on May 05,2006

NAYINI NARASIMHA REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
K. LAXMAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UDAIBHAN SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT [LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
E SURESH BABU VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2007-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
PHULA VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY /SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTARTE AND 11 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
VIMLA SHARMA VS. SARITA TAMRAKAR [LAWS(CHH)-2012-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
THERVOY GRAMAM MUNNETRA NALA SANGAM REG NO 87/09 VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-385] [REFERRED TO]
SUMMAN KUMARSHAMMI VS. MANOJ KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2023-4-105] [REFERRED TO]
JOGENDRA SINGH PAL VS. OMPRAKASH GUPTA [LAWS(MPH)-2010-1-135] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER KAUR VS. ANJU [LAWS(P&H)-2006-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
SHRINIWAS TIWARI VS. RAJKUMAR URMALIA [LAWS(MPH)-2011-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA VS. MALINGA MANIYANI [LAWS(KER)-2012-10-73] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Interpretation of Sec. 94 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.03.2005 passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
(3.)An election was held in Musheerabad Assembly Constituency on or about 20.04.2004. For conducting the said election electronic voting machines were used. Whereas the appellant contested as a candidate of 'Telangana Rashtra Samiti', the first respondent contested the said election as a candidate of 'Bharatiya Janata Party'. Whereas the appellant herein polled 53553 votes; the first respondent polled 53313 votes. The first respondent, thus, lost the election by a margin of 240 votes. An election petition was filed by the first respondent assailing the said election before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad, which was numbered as Election Petition No. 4 of 2004. In the said election petition, it was inter alia, contended :

"The petitioner submits that P.S. No. 91 was located adjacent to the Central Election Office of the petitioner. As already stated several of the party workers and sympathizers reside in that area. All those persons have cast their vote in favour of the petitioner. To establish the fact that the petitioner could not have polled zero votes in P.S. No. 91"



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