GANGARAPU USHAIAH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTORCO OPERATION MEDAK DISTRICT
LAWS(APH)-1992-1-25
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 31,1992

GANGARAPU USHAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT COLLECTOR(CO-OPERATION) MEDAK DISTRICT Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

VIRENDRA KUMAR MISRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1995-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
YELAMANCHILI SATYA KRISHNA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-92] [REFERRED TO]
PRATHIPATI BHAGYAMMA VS. ELECTION OFFICER [LAWS(APH)-2005-10-82] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The 2nd respondent herein who is the Election Officer issued a Notification on 2-1-1992 to hold the elections to the Managing Committee of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Chin-takunta Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District. The petitioner has filed his nomination for membership of the Managing Committee for Ward No. 2, mentioning his serial No. 984 in the voter's list prepared for this purpose. Unfortunately, the 2nd respondent rejected the nomination of the petitioner by the impugned order dated IO-1-I992 on the sole ground that his name at Serial No. 984 is not tallied whereas his serial number is at 982. Assailing the validity of this rejection order, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to treat his nomination as valid.
(2.)According to the election programme given by the 2nd respondent, 9-1-1992 is the date for filing nominations, 10-1-1992 is the date for scrutiny, 11-1-1992 is the date of withdrawal and 23-1-1992 is elections to Members of the Managing Committee and 29-1-1992 is the election day to the post of Chairman of the 3rd respondent-society. The impugned order reads as follows: 10-1-1992 REJECTION ORDER
"The nomination of Sri Gangarapu Ushaiah son of Devaiah for Ward No. 2 of P.A.Cs. Chinta Kunta is rejected, as he has mentioned his serial number in the nomination form as 984 his serial number mentioned in the voters' list is at 982. Hence not tallied, nomination rejected. Sd/- Narayana Rao Election Officer, PACS, Chintakunta."
The main grounds urged by the petitioner are that there is a bona fide mistake in giving the Serial at 984 in the nomination form, that his identity is beyond doubt and in any case under Rule 22 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, ('the Rules') any misdescription either of the candidate or the proposer cannot be the ground to throw away the nomination when the identity of the candidate is not in dispute. It is necessary to notice sub-rule 6(2) of Rule 22 of Rules: 22. xx xx 6. Scrutiny of nomination papers (1) XX XX XX (2) The election officer shall examine the nomination papers and decide all objections, which may be made by any candidate or his proposer, in respect of any nomination and may, either on such objection, or on his own motion and after such summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination: Provided that the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected merely on the ground of the incorrect description of his name or of the name of the proposer or of any other particulars relating to the candidate as entered in the list of members referred to in sub-rule (3) if the identity of the candidate or proposer, as the case may be is established beyond reasonable doubt."
(3.)A close reading of the above sub-rule 6(2) of Rule 22 clearly shows that the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected for any incorrect description either of his name or of the proposer or of any other particulars relating to the candidate in the voters' list if the identity of the candidate is established beyond reasonable doubt.
;


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