VINJAMURI PARTHASARATHI Vs. P. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND OTHERS
LAWS(APH)-1955-4-14
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 14,1955

Vinjamuri Parthasarathi Appellant
VERSUS
P. Ramachandra Rao And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WOODWARD V. SARSONS [REFERRED TO]
RAMANJULU NAIDU V. PARTHASARATHI AIYENGAR [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR GURBAKSH SINGH V. GURDIAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
'RATANSEY DAMJI V. RATANSEY VIRJI' [REFERRED TO]
CHENRAYUDU V. PEDDA RANGAPPA [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH SARMA V. JIBAN CHANDRA SARMA [REFERRED TO]
SEENI MADAR V. ABDUR RAHIMAN [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DINABANDHU SAHU VS. JADUMONI MANGARAJ [REFERRED TO]
T C BASAPPA VS. T NAGAPPA [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA PRASAD MUKHARIYA VS. LACHHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
HARI VISHNU KAMATH VS. AHMAD ISHAQUE [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA NATH MITTER VS. RADHA CHARAN PAL [REFERRED TO]
RATHIS CHANDRA MUNSHI VS. AMULYA CHARAN GHATAK [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chandra Reddi, J. - (1.)IN this application a declaration is sought that the election of all the respondents as members of the Andhra Bar Council is null and void. The applicant was one of the candidates for the elections to the Andhra Bar Council that were held on 6 -1 -1955. Thirty -four members of the Bar contested the elections of whom the ten respondents were declared duly elected, the applicant securing only the 24th rank.
He challenges the election of the respondents on two grounds: (1) that a large number of voters did not exercise their franchise in favour of the candidate or candidates for whom they desired to vote but parted with their voting papers in blank either wholly or in part along with their declaration forms into the hands of candidates who used the voting papers for "exchanging and cashing"; (2) the nomination papers of the respondents except of the two successful candidates M/s N. Subrahmanyam and P. Sundara Rao are invalid as they were not addressed to the secretary of the Bar Council as required by the Rules.

(2.)ALL the respondents filed counters denying the allegations in the letter of the applicant. At the hearing of the application, a preliminary objection was raised that one application for setting aside the election of the respondents was not maintainable and the application should, therefore, be dismissed 'in limine'. To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Andhra Bar Council Rules. Rule 21 provides:
A candidate may contest the validity of the election of a candidate declared to have been elected to the Bar Council by a letter signed by him and addressed to the Secretary. Such letter shall state the grounds upon which the validity of such election is contested and shall be delivered to the Secretary within seven days of the date of the publication in the Andhra Gazette, of the list' required by R. 20 to be so published, and after the expiry of seven days from the date of such publication, the validity of the election shall not be challenged by a candidate on any ground whatever.

(3.)IT is argued that the expression "election of a candidate" is significant and shows that the rule contemplates that separate petitions should be filed for setting aside the election of each successful candidate. Otherwise, if an omnibus petition of this kind were permitted it would lead to confusion. The ground of challenge must be brought home to each one of them and vague and general allegations impugning the election as a whole would not satisfy the requirements, the language of the rule being consistent only with the construction that the election of one candidate alone could be questioned in one application.
We feel there is some substance in this contention. The principle underlying this rule seems to us to be that a petitioner disputing the validity of election should indicate the grounds upon which the election of a candidate is contested. The factors that may invalidate the election of one candidate may not govern the election of another candidate. We cannot agree with the argument that in one application the election of all candidates held on a particular day could he impeached and that if the election of one has to be avoided it should apply to all.

The ruling of the Calcutta High Court in - Rathishchandra v. Amulya Charan', : AIR 1931 Cal 36 (A) has little bearing in this context However, that need not lead to the result of dismissal of the petition. An application may be treated as ten applications and the allegations therein regarded as applying individually to the respondents. This principle is illustrated by 'Seeni Madar v. Abdur Rahiman', : AIR 1939 Mad 792 (B) and 'In re: Udharam Pahlajrai',, AIR 1936 Sind 75 (SB) (C).

But the case of each of the respondents has to be considered separately. We may also notice in this connection what Sri Roger says in his book on Election at page 174, Vol. 2, Edn. 20:

Two or more candidates may be made respondents to the same petition, and their case may for the sake of convenience be tried at the same time, but for all other purposes it is deemed to be a separate petition against each respondent.

;


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