Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 46 (AP)

Sunnam Ramakka v. Badisha Naga Vishnu Murthy

2007-01-17

P.S.NARAYANA

body2007
ORDER Heard Smt. K. Udayasree, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in all these batch of C.R.Ps., and Sri Y. Rama Rao, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents in C.R.P. No. 6299/2006. 2. Smt. Udayasree, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioners in all these batch of C.R.Ps. would contend that these C.R.Ps. are filed as against the respective orders by virtue of which the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Election Tribunal at Mulugu, Warangal District had rejected the respective memos raising preliminary objections relating to the very maintainability of the respective Election Petitions. The learned Counsel would submit that the Election Tribunal failed to appreciate that the election petition has to be filed in accordance with the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 3-3-93 only as A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal in respect of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishad) Rules 1995 (hereinafter in short referred to as Rules for the purpose of convenience). The learned Counsel also would submit that Rule 5 of the Rules specifies that at the time of presentation of the election petition, a cash of Rs. 100/- to be deposited as security for the costs of the same and in the event of the same not being complied with, the Election Tribunal is left with no other option except to dismiss the election petition. The learned Counsel also would submit that the Election Tribunal failed to appreciate that the payment of court-fee is different from the compliance of Rule 5(1) of the Rules and payment of Court-fee is Rs. 50/- whereas security deposit is Rs. 100/- and the same should be in cash. The learned counsel also would point out that the Election Tribunal had erred in referring to Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as Code) which has no application at all to the present batch of cases. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Anjamma v. S. Pushpamma. 3. Sri Y. Rama Rao on the other hand would contend that the Election Tribunal recorded reasons in detail and especially in the light of the reasons which had been recorded in para 4 of the impugned orders, the said orders need not be disturbed by this Court. 3. Sri Y. Rama Rao on the other hand would contend that the Election Tribunal recorded reasons in detail and especially in the light of the reasons which had been recorded in para 4 of the impugned orders, the said orders need not be disturbed by this Court. The learned Counsel also would submit that even otherwise instead of moving regular applications, memos were filed in all these matters. 4. The applicability or otherwise of Section 149 of the Code need not be gone into at this stage. Rule 7(1) of the Rules specifies that every election petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal. as early as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the trial of suits The proviso specifies that it shall only be necessary for the Election Tribunal to make a memorandum of the substance of evidence of any witness examined by him. Rule 7(2) specifies certain matters in (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) to the effect that the Election Tribunal shall have the powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the aforesaid matters. 5. There is some controversy between the parties relating to the non-compliance of the condition of payment of security deposit. It is true that the Election Tribunal recorded certain reasons and ultimately rejected these memos. However, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Anjammas case (1 supra). On a careful scrutiny of the impugned Orders and also the facts and circumstances of these cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that such objections, if any, may have to be raised by the parties by filing properly drafted applications and not by way of memos. This practice of raising such objections by memos may have to be deprecated. In the fight of the same, without expressing any further opinion, the respective Revision Petitioners are given liberty to file appropriate applications raising the objections and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Election Tribunal at Mulugu, Warangal district, to consider such applications in accordance with law especially in the light of the decision of the Division Bench referred to supra, not being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are hereby disposed of. No order as to costs.