TANUGULA YELLAIAH Vs. BOMMAKANTI SAMBAIAH
LAWS(APH)-1992-8-41
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 11,1992

TANUGULA YELLAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
BOMMAKANTI SAMBAIAH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VIVEKANAND GIRI VS. NAWAL KISHORE SAHI [REFERRED TO]
DWIJA BHOI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)In the election for Sarpanch of Madannapet village in Narasampet Mandal, Warangal distict held on 16-3-1988, the petitioner herein was declared as elected with a majority of more than 200 votes. The only other contestant in the said election was the 1st respondent herein. Having lost the election, the 1st respondent filed O.P.No.4 of 1988 before the 4th respondent herein i.e., Election Court at Narasampet, questioning the election of the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner's nomination was wrongly accepted and that the petitioner's name was not in the voters list of Madannapet village prepared in the year 1987 and that his objections in respect of the nomination of the petitioner were wrongly rejected by the 2nd respondent herein who was the Election Officer for the said election. The 4th respondent herein by its order dated 13-8-1991 allowed the said O.P. and set aside the election of the petitioner. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the said order dated 13-8-1991 of the 4th respondent and for quashing the same.
(2.)Before the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1; the petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 and the 2nd respondent herein who was impleaded as 2nd respondent in the said O.P. examined himself as R.W.2. The voters list of 266 Narasampet Assembly Constituency for the year 1983 relating to Madannapet village was marked as Ex.A-1 and the voters list of Madannapet village for the year 1986 was marked as Ex.A-2. Ex.A-2 contains also the additions made in 1987. This is all the evidence in the said O.P. The 1st respondent's case in the said O.P. is that even though the petitioner's name Yellaiah Son of Yellaiah aged 41 years and the names of his two wives appeared under Serial Nos.299, 300 and 301 under Block No.3 in Ex.A-1 as also the names of his father, mother etc., under Serial Nos. 295 to 298 in Ex.A-1, the names of the petitioner and his two wives do not find place in Ex.A-2. Only the names of the petitioner's father, mother etc., appear at Serial Nos. 1027 to 1030 in the main list of 1986 in Ex.A-2. The 1st respondent states that petitioner's description is correctly given under Serial No.299 of Ex.A-1. His name is Yellaiah; his father's name is also Yellaiah; and his age as mentioned in Ex.A-1 at that tune was 41 years. The 1st respondent contends that in the additional list of 1987 in Ex.A-2 under Serial No.1679 relating to Block No.3, there is a voter by name Thanugula Yellaiah, whose father's name is given as Iylaiah and whose age is given as 21 and that the said Thanugula Yellaiah is not the same as the petitioner herein and that the petitioner filed his nomination stating that he was the voter under Serial No. 1679 thus impersonating the siad Yellaiah Son of lylaiah aged 21 years. The 1st respondent also contends that the said Yellaiah Son of lylaiah left the village and taking advantage of that, the petitioner got his nomintion accepted falsely describing himself in his nomination paper as son of Iyalaiah aged 21 years. The 1st respondent further contends that under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') "no person shall be qualified for election as a member of a gram panchayat unless his name appears on its electoral roll and he is not less than twenty-one years of age" and that as the petitioner's name does not appear on the electoral roll of Madannapet village, he was not qualified for election as member of the said Gram Panchayat. On the other hand, the petitioner's case is that he was the voter in Serial No. 1679 of the addition of 1987 forming part of Ex.A-2 and that his father's name is Yellaiah who is also known as Iylaiah and that his age was incorrectly shown as 21 years in the said voters list. He also states that the Election Officer was satisfied about his identity and that his election cannot be questioned by the 1st respondent as there is no substance in the objection raised by he 1st respondent.
(3.)The 4th respondent, on the question whether the name of the petitioner herein appeared in the electoral role of Madannapet village, held that the petitioner was not the same person whose name was shown at Serial No. 1679 of the voters list Ex.A-2 on which the petitioner relied and filed his nomiantion and that therefore the name of the petitioner did not apear in the elecotral roll of Madannapet Gram Panchayat. In view of that finding the 4th respondent held that the petitioner was disqualified from contesting the election and that therefore his election was void and in that view of the matter set aside the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch and allowed the election petition. The first reason for the 4th respondent arriving at the said decision was that the petitioner himself admitted that his age was not 21 years as mentioned in Ex.A-2 under Serial No.1679 and that the he had himself mentioned his age as 41 years in the Vakalatnama given to his advocate and that even in his evidence as R.W.1 he stated his age as 30 years. The second reason was that the petitioner's father was all the time shown as Yellaiah and never as lylaiah and that the petitioner admitted in his evidence that in all the earlier voters lists his father's name was shown as Yellaiah and in his ration card also his father's name was shown as Yellaiah and that he had no documentary proof that his father was also called as lylaiah. The 4th respondent also took into consideration the statement of the 1st respondent in his evidence that a person by name Thanugula Yellaiah Son of lylaiah lived in his village from some time and migrated to some other village about four or five years back and that the petitioner filed the nomination taking advantage of the name of the said Yellaiah occurring at Serial No.1679 of Ex.A-2. Finally the 4th respondent concluded as follows :-
"The age of respondent No.1 is shown as 41 years in voters' list, Ex.A-1 at Sl.No.299 and the respondent No.1 now disputes that age and claims that he is 30 years old. Even assuming that respondent No.l is the same person, whose name is mentioned at Sl.No.1679 in the voters' list, 1987 he must not be more than 25 years. The respondent No.l shown his age as 45 years in the Vakalatnama given to his Advocate. Thus, there is discrepancy regarding the age of respondent No.1 and the age of the person by name Yellaiah S/o. lylaiah. shown at Sl.No.1679 of the voters' list, Ex.A-2 as 21 years, cannot be the age of the respondent No.l; and further, the respondent No.l contends that in all the electoral rolls, his father's name was shown as Yellaiah and he could not place any material to show that his father is also called as lylaiah. The contention of the respondents that the names of the respondent No.l and his father as shown in the nomination papers are tallied with that of the voters' list; and, therefore, he was admitted to contest the election, is not tenable. It is suggested to P.W.I in his cross-examination that the voters' list, Ex.A-2 is not related to the Gram Panchayat Elections held in the year, 1988. If the respondent No.l's contention is true, he could have produced the correct list of voters of the Gram Panchayat, but he did not file any such list showing his name and his father's name as Yellaiah. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, I do not hesitate to hold that the respondent No.1 is not the same person whose name is shown at Sl.No.1679 of the voters list, ExA-2, on which, he relied and filed his nomination for the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Madannapet; and accordingly I find that the name of the respondent No.1 is not appeared in the electoral roll of the Madannapet Gram Panchayat and this point is accordingly answered."

;


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