VADDE NAGESWARA RAO Vs. GOTTIPATI ANANDARAO
LAWS(APH)-1955-3-8
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 10,1955

VADDE NAGESWARA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
GOTTIPATI ANANDARAO Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WOODWARD V. SARSONS [REFERRED TO]
R. VISWANATHA V. T. K. PERIASWAMI [REFERRED TO]
RALANSEY DAMJI V. RATANSEY VIRJI [REFERRED TO]
NARASIMHULU V. NARASIMHAM [REFERRED TO]
HARI VISHNU KAMATH VS. AHMAD ISHAQUE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

NAGAMMA VS. S P MABIPAL REDDY [LAWS(APH)-1990-6-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Election Commissioner, Bapatla, in O.P. No. 71 of 1952. The facts which have given rise to this writ may be stated. The petitioner and the 1st respondent were the contestants at an election of the Chairman of the Chirala Municipality which was held on 29th November, 1952. The 1st respondent obtained 9 votes as against 13 votes secured by the petitioner and the Revenue Divisional Officer who conducted the election, declared the petitioner to have been duly elected.
(2.)The 1st respondent filed O.P. No. 71 of 1952, alleging inter alia several irregularities in the conduct of the election including an objection that the balk t-papeis which, were supplied to the voters for the purpose of the poll did not bear the "official stamp" as prescribed by rule IV (3) of the rules for the conduct of election of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Municipal Councils. All the other irregularities complained of were held not proved but the Election Commissioner held that the ballot-papers did not have the " official stamp " as required by the rules and that therefore they ought to be rejected. In the result, he allowed the petition, filed by the 1st respondent and declared that the election of the petitioner as Chairman of the Chirala Municipality is void. He directed that a fresh election should take place. It is this order of the Election Commissioner that is sought to be quashed in this Writ Petition.
(3.)Before I proceed to consider the respective contentions of the parties, the relevant rules which govern the conduct of the election of Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of Municipal Councils may be set out : Rule IV, sub-rule (3) provides :
"Every councillor wishing to vote shall be supplied with a ballot-paper, which shall be a blank sheet of piper on which the President of the meeting shall have, before the supply, affixed a stamp so as to indicate its authenticity. The voter shall then proceed to the place set apart for for the purpose and there place the ballot-paper in the ballot-box of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote. The President of the meeting shall cause such arrangements to be made as will prevent the councillors who have already voted from having access to the councillors who are yet to vote."
Sub-rule (4) runs thus :- "The President of the meeting shall then open in the presence of the councillors present the ballot-boxes one after another, take out the ballot-papers thereform, count them, and record the number thereof in a statement. A ballot-paper shall be rejected if it- (a) bears any mark by which the voter can be identified, or (4) does not bear the official stamp prescribed in sub-rule (3). Exhibits B-49 to B-61 are the ballot-papers polled for the petitioner and Exhibits B-62 to B-70 are the ballot-papers which have been polled for the 1st respondent. All of them are small thick blank papers and they contain a signature which is said to be that of the Revenue Divisional Officer.
;


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