GATLA CHINA NAGI REDDI Vs. OBULUSETTI MARKONDAIAH
LAWS(APH)-1955-2-16
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 08,1955

GATLA CHINA NAGI REDDI Appellant
VERSUS
OBULUSETTI MARKONDAIAH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HOWES V. TURNER [REFERRED TO]
MONKS V. JACKSON [REFERRED TO]
VELAYVTHA MUDAHAR V. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAHMANIA GOUNDER V. ELECTION TRIBUNAL,NORTH ARCOT [REFERRED TO]
RATHISCHANDRA MUNSHI V. AMULYACHARAN GHATAK [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records in Original Petition, No. 2 of 1953 on the file of the Election Commissioner (District Munsif) Gurazala, relating to the election of the Panchayat Board, Kandlakunta, and to quash the order, dated 28th August, 1953, therein.
(2.)The election of the President and members of (he Panchayat Board of Kandlakunta village was held on 29th January, 1953. It is not now in dispute that for the presidentship of the Panchayat Board there were two candidates who filed nomination papers before 9 A.M. They are Markondiah and Panakala Reddi. Markondaiah filed a written objection that the father's name of Panakala Reddi was not correctly noted in the voters' list and hence his nomination paper could not be accepted. After scrutiny and verification, the Election Officer upheld the objection of Markondaiah and rejected the nomination of Panakala Reddi. At this stage it may be mentioned that the 1st respondent's case is that after so rejecting the nomination of Panakala Reddi, the Election Officer called for fresh nominations, which he was not entitled to do, and thereupon the petitioner's name was proposed and accepted after 10 A.M. ; that the 1st respondent thereupon filed written objections that the time for receiving nomination papers was over and that therefore he could not accept any more nominations. It is the further case of the 1st respondent that the election officer accepted the nomination of the petitioner notwithstanding his objection.
(3.)The poll was taken and as per the result of the poll the 1st respondent got 367 votes while the petitioner got 391 votes. The petitioner was thereupon declared elected.
;


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