WP/16924/2003 of M/s. Siva Shankar Granites (P) Ltd., Vs The Superintendent of Police, on 10 December 2003

Conclusion

ORDER:

This Court ordered notice before admission on 04-09-2006. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit.

Heard the learned counsel representing the writ petitionerSri D. Srinivas and the learned counsel representing therespondents Sri V.V. Prabhakara Rao.

The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaringthe action of the respondents in not taking steps for conducting re-poll in Malaupparagudem Gram Panchayat, Kalidindi Mandal,Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the rulesissued by respondent No.1 and consequently direct therespondents not to declare the results till conducting of re-poll to Malaupparagudem Gram Panchayat, Kalidindi Mandal, KrishnaDistrict and pass suitable orders.

It is stated that petitioner is a resident of MalaupparagudemGram Panchayat and for the purpose of conducting panchayatelections, it is divided into 12 wards. Out of 12 wards, 3 wardswere declared unanimously in favour of the petitioner’ssupporters. For remaining 9 wards, elections were conducted. Out of 9 wards for which election was conducted, 7 wards werewon by the petitioner’s supporters. The elections to theMalauparagudem Gram Panchayat is scheduled to be held on 06-08-2006 i.e., third phase of election schedule as per notification. The petitioner having zeal to serve public, submitted hernomination for the post of Sarpanch and her nomination wasscrutinized by holding it as valid one. Likewise, another candidatewas also filed her nomination for the said post. Therefore,conducting of election for the post of Sarpanch is inevitable andaccordingly symbols were allotted to the contesting candidates.

It is also submitted that the respondents have made all arrangements for conducting free and fair poll.

On 06-08-2006, election was conducted in the peacefulatmosphere and the public exercised their franchise. At theevening of the day on which election was conducted

i.e. 06-08-2006, all the ballot boxes were pooled up to the countinghall. The counting staff opened the ballot boxes in the presence ofcounting agents and started counting.

After some time, the counting agents of the petitioner found thatabout 6 bundles of fake ballot papers were mixed up with the other ballot bundles by the counting staff, more particularly M. SrinivasaRao. When it is brought to the notice of the election officer, hequestioned the said individual and he admitted that a mixed up twobundles, each bundle 50 ballot papers with a view to help thegroup of other contesting candidate Smt. S. Savitri.

It is also further stated that at that time, some of themiscreants/mischief mongers at the behest of the leaders of theparty in power, entered into the hall. They created a panicsituation in the counting room and smartly handed over the fakedballot paper bundles to the counting authorities, as per the planalready hatched by them.

Later they disappeared with the original ballot papers, separatedby the counting authorities with suitable numbers. The individualswho entered the counting room unauthorisedly have taken out theballot boxes containing ballot papers of the post of Sarpanch, asthe ballot papers have been taken out by the individuals, thecounting process has been stopped by the election authorities.

It is also further stated that about the illegal activities of M.Srinivasa Rao, counting staff, petitioner submitted herrepresentation by narrating all the incidents occurred in thecounting hall and sought for enquiry and requested the authoritiesto identify the fake ballot papers and to conduct re-polling for thepost of Sarpanch. Though the respondents received the saidrepresentation, which records the facts and falsity taken place atthe time of counting of votes, have not turned up with theirremedial measure. It is relevant here to state that one of thepolling staff and the counting authorities participated in the process, viz., Masimukku Srinivasa Rao stated what is actuallyhappened. Upon such, there is an exchange of words among thegroups belong to the contesting candidates. He also endorsed thesame on Rs.100/- bond paper. At that time, some of themiscreants entered into the place and taken away the ballotboxes. The police and revenue authorities, who were in duty ofelection, controlled the situation by informing the petitioner thatthey will bring it to the notice of respondent No.2, DistrictCollector, who is the Election Authority at District level about theirregularities committed by the counting staff. Whereby, theauthorities further promised that they will intimate the same torespondent No.1 for taking steps for re-polling.

It is also further stated that the said incidents were broughtin the press on 07-08-2006. Due to the action of miscreants bytaking away the ballot boxes, there is no scope for recounting ofvotes besides a chance for identifying the spurious ballot papersmixed with the original ballot papers. Hence, re-polling isinevitable for the purpose of protecting the democracy. Therespondents have not taken away steps for conducting re-poll inthe wake of the ballot boxes were carried away by themiscreants. As on the date, for the post of Sarpanch ofMulaupparagudem Gram Panchayat was not officially declared,due to the incidents stated above. It is submitted that as the ballot papers were taken away by theunauthorized individuals before completion of counting process,the authorities have to conduct enquiry about the fake ballotpapers mixed up with the original ballot papers. Hence, the writpetition.

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it wasstated that the State Election Commission issued electionnotification on 09-07-2006 for conduct of elections to the GramPanchayats throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant tothe above notification, the District Collectors of the State issuednotification on 15-07-2006 notifying the Gram Panchayats. TheSchedule mentioned in the notification issued by the State ElectionCommission is:

Receiving Nominations : From 15-07-2006 to 19-07-2006 upto 5-00 PM

Scrutiny of Nominations : 20-07-2006

Filing of Appeals : 21-07-2006

Hearing and Disposal of

Appeals : 22-07-2006

Withdrawal of nominations

and publication of validly

contesting candidates : 23-07-2006

Date of Polling for Malaupp-

aragudem Gram Panchayat

declaration of results : 06-08-2006

It is also stated that respondent No.3 as Stage-II ReturningOfficer to Malaupparagudem Gram Panchayat, Kalidindi Mandal,Krishna District, states that after completion of the polling, thecounting started after 2.00 PM and one Smt. Sarika Savitri isdeclared as elected to the post of Sarpanch of MalaupparagdudemGram Panchayat with a majority of 43 votes against the writpetitioner. I obtained the signature from the elected candidate and issued the certificate in Form No.29 declaring that Smt. SarikaSavitri was duly elected to the post of Sarpanch ofMalaupparagudem Gram Panchayat, Kalidindi Mandal, KrishnaDistrict.

It is also further stated that the candidates and their agentsleft the counting hall and they were making arrangements to shiftthe election material to the Mandal Development Office. Thereafter, the writ petitioner and her husband along with 600persons came to the counting hall and started shouting against theelection staff. The entire election staff were scared and closed thedoors. The followers of the writ petitioner broke open the windowsand the doors with iron rods, stones and entered into the countinghall.

They started using unparliamentary language against the electionstaff and started beating the election staff indiscriminately. Thepolice present near the counting hall fired two rounds in the air andin spite of the firing, the mob did not stop their activities andcreated terror situation and warned them that they will pour petrolon the election staff and burn them alive and further threatenedthem to give Form No.29 in favour of the writ petitioner. It isstated that respondent No.3 refused to give Form No.29 in spite ofthreatening. However, the followers of the writ petitioner startedbeating the election staff and were using unparliamentary language and beating the woman teacher alsowho was on election duty. In such circumstances, the electionstaff left with no other option except to sign on the papers asdemanded by the writ petitioner and their followers. This tensesituation continued upto 12.00 O’ clock in the midnight and at around 12-15 AM in the night, the Additional Superintendent ofPolice came with police force and disbursed the mob and thepolice personnel took the election staff to the Mandal DevelopmentOffice.

It is also stated that on the same day, respondent No.3 andother election staff issued complaints to the higher officials andalso lodged a complaint in the Kalidindi Police Station and lodgedFIR Nos.71 and 72 in the same Police Station. Pursuant to thecomplaint in FIR Nos.71 and 72, a case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 188, 307, 353 and354 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

It is also stated that respondent No.3 believed the same to be true,the police have identified more than 80 persons who were indulgedin the unlawful activity that took place on 06-08-2006 in the counting hall of Malaupparagudem GramPanchayat and the police are further investigating into the matter.

It is also stated that the writ petitioner and her husband SriNaga Satyanarayana were also shown as accused in both thecases and the writ petitioner’s husband was arrested by thepolice. It is also stated that the allegations and averments madein the writ petition are totally false and contrary to the record. Thewrit petitioner having lost the election by 43 votes, intentionally and willfully made those allegations againstthe respondents. The writ petitioner suppressed all these factsand filed the present writ petition and the writ petitioner had notapproached the Court with clean hands.

Certain submissions, no doubt, were made.

When specific allegations are made relating to bribery, inasmuchas the same had not been specifically denied, in the facts andcircumstances, respondent No.1 should have taken steps andshould have ordered for conduct of re-poll. In the light of therespective stands taken by the parties and also in the light of theview expressed by this Court in

P. Jagadamba

v. State Election Commission,

Secunderabad[[1]], wherein this Court observed that normally inthe matters of this nature, while ordering re-poll, the State ElectionCommission should be more careful and cautious, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that these aspects cannot be taken onrecord, at this stage, and hence without expressing any furtheropinion about the factual controversies, the Writ Petition isdismissed as being devoid of merit leaving option for the writpetitioner to pursue the other appropriate remedies available to herin law.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as tocosts.

__________________

Date:16-10-2006.PV

[1]2006(5) ALD 526