KARAM BAPANNA DORA Vs. STATE
LAWS(APH)-1955-1-19
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 11,1955

IN RE: KARAM BAPANNA DORA Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a petition under Art. of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ in the nature of certiorari, to call for the records and quash the order of the Returning Officer, Bhadrachalam (G. 7052 of 1954 dated 7.1.1955) declaring the nomination of Sri Syamala Sitaramayya to the Scheduled Tribes Reserved Seat of the Bhadrachalam Constitutency as valid and to give such other direction or directions as may be deemed fit.
(2.)For an election to the Scheduled Tribes Reserved Seat to the Andhra Legilsative Assembly from the Bhadrachalam Constituency the petitioner and two others, viz., Kondamodalu Rami Reddy and Syamala Sitaramayya filed nominations. On 7.1.1955, the Returning Officer for that Constitutency took up for scrutiny the nomination papers filed by the various condidates. At the time of the scrutiny, the petitioner took objection to the nomination of Syamala Sitaramayya alleging that he (the said Sitaramayya) is less than 25 years and as such he is not competent to be chosen to fill a seat in the State Legislature under Art. 173 (b) of the Constitution.
(3.)The Returning Officer passed an order which runs as follows ;
"The scrutiny of the nominations was taken up at 11 a.m. on 7.1.1955. The nomination of the candidate, Sri Syamala Sitramayya, was taken up for scrutiny at about 11-15 a.m. The petitioner raised an objection stating that the candidate is underaged, that is less than 25 years, and as such he is not competent to stand for election. But he did not produce any evidence in support of his contention and requested time till this evening. On a personal of the electoral roll prepared in 1953, it is seen that his age is noted as 24 years and I accordingly considered that he should be definitely above 25 years of age now. As I could not adjourn the issue under S. 36 (5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, I passed an order accepting the nomination then and there. After completing the scrutiny of all the other nominations (8 in all) and after the candidates party left the hall, the petitioner filed a birth extract of the candidate at 12-30 p.m., wherein it is shown that the date of birth of the candidate is 30.4.1931, indicating that his age is less than 25, Since I have already passed orders accepting the nomination of the respondent the petition stands dismissed."
The petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the said order.
;


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