Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1268 (AP)

Peddlnti Purnachandra Rao v. Bonu Narayanaswaray

2003-10-17

P.S.NARAYANA

body2003
( 1 ) C. M. P. NO. 21448 of 2003 in C. M. P. No. 20380 of 2003 in C. R. P. No. 4445of 2003 is filed by the vacate petitioner/respondent no. 1 praying to vacate the interim stay granted on 8-9-2003 in C. M. P. No. 20380 of 2003 in C. R. P. No. 4445 of 2003. ( 2 ) SRI D. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and also Sri Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel representing the 1st respondent vacate petitioner had advanced lengthy arguments and requested the Court to dispose of the main Civil Revision Petition itself. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are as hereunder:- the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, bobbili, made in I. A. No. 395 of 2003 in e. O. P. No. 3 of 2003, dated 3-9-2003. The said application was filed praying for issuance of summons to the Assistant Election Officer and the Election Officer at the time of the conducting elections to the Gottivalasa Gram panchayat, who were present at the time of putting seals to the ballot boxes. The learned judge, after recording certain reasons had dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision petition is preferred. ( 4 ) SRI D. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to rules 38 and 44 of the rules relating to the andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of election of Members and Sarpanch of Gram panchayats, Members of Mandal Parishad and Members of Zilla Parishad) Rules, 1994, hereinafter in short referred to as the Rules , for the purpose of convenience. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the fact that the votes are to be counted to ensure and satisfy that the seals have been intact for the purpose of identification, the summoning of the of ficers would be essential. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and had contended that in view of the reasons explained and inasmuch as no prejudice would be caused to the other side, the learned Judge-Election tribunal could have as well allowed the application instead of dismissing the same. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and had contended that in view of the reasons explained and inasmuch as no prejudice would be caused to the other side, the learned Judge-Election tribunal could have as well allowed the application instead of dismissing the same. ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent in the Civil Revision Petition had taken this court through the historical back-ground and the series of events and had explained that it is clear from these events that the conduct of the party is blameworthy and definitely this application was thought of only with a view to further delay the proceedings. The learned Counsel had pointed out that an order passed in I. A. No. 685 of 2002 was questioned by way of revision in C. R. P. No. 5834 of 2002 and this court had dismissed the same by order dated 16-12-2002. The learned Counsel also pointed out that again Transfer O. P. No. 1055 of 2002 was filed on the file of the District Judge, vizianagaram and the said transfer O. P. was allowed. The learned Counsel further pointed out that when the learned Judge had been insisting for the production of the ballot boxes by summoning the same for the purpose of deciding the matter, again a private complaint was thought of. The learned Counsel would maintain that these events would definitely go to show that the application is not a bona fide application and hence the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel and also perused the material available on record. ( 7 ) THE impugned order dated 3-9-2003 reads as hereunder:-"this petition is filed by the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 1, C. P. C. for summoning witnesses, election material for giving evidence. I perused the petition. It is evident that the petition is not containing the listed witnesses to be summoned and also listed documents as contemplated under Rule 93 and form 20. So, when the petitioner had filed the petition for summoning the witnesses and documents, the petitioner shall furnish the full particulars in form No. 20 of rule 93 of Civil Rules of Practice. So, the form No. 20 is mandatory on the part of the petitioner. So, when the petitioner had filed the petition for summoning the witnesses and documents, the petitioner shall furnish the full particulars in form No. 20 of rule 93 of Civil Rules of Practice. So, the form No. 20 is mandatory on the part of the petitioner. But, here, the petitioner failed to furnish the details of the list of witnesses and documents which are to be summoned. On a perusal of the docket sheet of this e. O. P. , it is evident that the petitioner- respondent was given ample opportunity to examine all the evidence on his behalf and after giving opportunity the evidence on respondent side was closed on 28-8-2002 and now stageofe. O. P. ,m. D. D. O. hastoproduce the election material into the Tribunal for verification and to pass orders. So, at this stage, this petition is filed. The learned Advocate for the respondent vehemently argued that this petition has no grounds and it is filed only for drag on the proceedings. I hold that the arguments put forth by the learned Counsel for the respondent is convincing. Further, I see there are no merits in this petition. So, the petition is dismissed accordingly. " ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that this Election o. P. was originally filed and numbered as election O. P. No. 3 of 2001 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Election tribunal, Parvathipuram. It is also not in controversy that by virtue of the orders passed in Transfer O. P. No. 1055 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, the matter was transferred from the Principal junior Civil Judge-Cum-Election Tribunal, parvathipuram, to the Court of Principal junior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, bobbili, and after transfer the same was renumbered as Election O. P. No. 3 of 2003. It is also not in controversy that the order made in I. A. No. 685 of 2002 was questioned by way of C. R. P. No. 5834 of 2002 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 16-12-2002. No doubt all these aspects were pointed out to show the conduct of the party. Be that as it may, even coming to the merits of the matter, it is pertinent to note that both the parties had gone on trial on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties. No doubt all these aspects were pointed out to show the conduct of the party. Be that as it may, even coming to the merits of the matter, it is pertinent to note that both the parties had gone on trial on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties. It is brought to my notice that at no point of time this objection relating to the suspicion in relation to the seals had been raised. Even otherwise, it is needless to say that the Election tribunal is expected to ensure before proceeding with the counting of the votes that the seals are intact and the seals had not been tampered. For this purpose, summoning of the concerned officers, who were the officers at the relevant point of time may not be necessary. Rule 38 of the Rules referred to supra dealing with sealing of used ballot papers reads as hereunder:-"38. Sealing of used Ballot Papers:- the valid ballot papers of each candidate and the rejected Ballot Papers shall thereafter be bundled separately and the several bundles made up into a separate packet which, shall be sealed with the seals of the Election Officer and of such of the candidates, their election agents or counting agents as may desire to affix their seals thereon, and on the packets be sealed shall be recorded the following particulars, namely- (a) the number of the polling station, number of ward/name of Gram panchayat/mandal Parishad; and (b) the date of counting. " ( 9 ) RULE 44 of the said Rules, dealing with the disposal of Ballot Papers reads as specified hereunder:-"44. Disposal of Ballot Papers:- (1) The Election Officer shall, after declaring the results forward a copy of the return to the Executive authority concerned and shall handover to the officer authorized by the Election Authority the packets of ballot papers, whether counted, rejected or tendered. These packets shall not be opened and the contents, shall not be inspected or produced except under the orders of an authority competent to decide election disputes. (2) The officer so authorised shall return packets and the marked copies of the electoral roll for a year and shall then, unless otherwise directed by the orders of an authority competent to decide election disputes, cause them to be destroyed. (2) The officer so authorised shall return packets and the marked copies of the electoral roll for a year and shall then, unless otherwise directed by the orders of an authority competent to decide election disputes, cause them to be destroyed. " ( 10 ) EVEN on a close reading of the aforesaid rules, this Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to summon the concerned officers as required by the revision petitioner, especially in the absence of any specific plea or ground raised at any point of time complaining about any suspicion relating to the tampering of seals. As already observed supra, even otherwise, it is the duty of the election Tribunal to satisfy itself relating to the seals being intact before proceeding with the counting. Apart from it, the learned Judge- election Tribunal while dismissing the said application had recorded reasons. ( 11 ) VIEWED from any angle, I do no see any legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 3-9-2003 warranting interference under article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed as being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.