Thommen, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 25-1-1988 in Election Petition No. 1 of 1985. The High Court by the impugned order "set aside the proceedings of counting and the resultant declaration" made on 28-12-1984 in respect of the election to the Lok Sabha held on 27-12-1984 from 34, Nizamabad Parliamentary Constituency consisting of 7 Assembly Segments. The High Court directed the Secretary to the Elect on Commission to conduct the counting of he votes afresh in the said Constituency from which the appellant was declared elected to the Lok Sabha. The 1st respondent, M. Narayan Reddy was one of the six candidates who contested the election. According to the result declared by the Returning Officer, the appellant secured 2,51,172 votes while the lst respondent, the election petitioner, secured 2,48,725 votes. The lst respondent filed Election Petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking a declaration that the election of the appellant was void and that the 1st respondent was duly elected from the said Constituency.
(2.) The election was challenged by the 1st respondent broadly on three grounds: 1. Illegalities and irregularities in the counting of votes, 2. Impersonation of voters, and 3. Corrupt practices. The High Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed 25 issues, of which Issue No. 7 alone is relevant in the present proceeding. The election was set aside by the High Court solely on the basis of Issue No. 7, the other issues having been either not pressed by the election petitioner or found against him. Issue No. 7 reads: "Whether the Additional Assistant Returning Officers were not authorised to perform the duties and functions of the Returning Officers as alleged by the election petitioner -
(3.) The pleading in regard to this issue is contained in paragraph 13 of the Election Petition. It reads: "Be that as it may, the "Additional Returning Officers" in respect of this parliamentary constituency were not appointed and authorised by the Election Commission to perform the duties and functions of the Returning Officer. Therefore, every action taken by the said Additional Assistant Returning Officers, including the rejection of doubtful ballot papers, is absolutely illegal, void and forbidden by law. Hence, it is a serious irregularity affecting the validity of counting procedure adopted for counting of votes and on this ground alone the petitioner is entitled to inspection of the ballot papers and order for recount. These irregularities have taken place during the counting in all the counting halls numbering 7 in total.";