Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Ashokan vs N Prem Kumar on 2 August, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.1576 & 1583/2024
APHC010306452024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3206]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1576 & 1583 of 2024
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1583/2024
Between:
K Ashokan ...PETITIONER
(in both C.R.Ps)
AND
The Commissioner ...RESPONDENT
(In both C.R.Ps)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K V L NARASIMHA RAO
(In both C.R.Ps.)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. Harinath Reddy Soma
(in C.R.P.No.1583 of 2024)
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1583/2024
Between:
K Ashokan ...PETITIONER
AND
N Prem Kumar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K V L NARASIMHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA
RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.1576 & 1583/2024
The Court made the following Common Order:
The petitioner herein had been declared elected as Corporator for Ward
No.20 of Chittoor Municipal Corporation. Two Election Petitions have been
filed challenging the said Election. E.O.P.No.292 of 2022 was filed by the
Commissioner, Chittoor Municipal Corporation, Chittoor, before the Principal
District Judge, Chittoor. E.O.P.No.2295 of 2022 was filed by one of the
unsuccessful candidates in the said election, before the Principal District
Judge, Chittoor.
2. The petitioner herein moved I.A.No.518 of 2023 in E.O.P.No.292
of 2022 and I.A.No.509 of 2023 in E.O.P.No.295 of 2022, seeking rejection of
the Election O.Ps on two grounds. Firstly, that the said O.Ps have been filed
beyond limitation and secondly, that necessary documents, which should have
been accompanied the Election Petitions, under the provisions of the
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, were not attached to the said Election
Petitions.
3. Both these applications were dismissed by the Principal District
Judge, Chittoor, by way of orders dated 05.07.2024. Aggrieved by the said
orders, both these revision petitions have been filed.
4. As the issues raised in both the revision petitions are one and the
same, and relating to the same question, they are being disposed of by way of
this common order.
RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.1576 & 1583/2024
5. Heard Sri K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents in C.R.P.No.1583 of 2024.
6. The petitioner herein was declared as elected on 14.03.2021. The
Election O.Ps, were filed on 16.09.2021. The case of the petitioner is that the
limitation for filing of Election O.Ps, under Section 71(2) of the A.P. Municipal
Corporation Act, 1955 (for short the Act), is two months from the date on
which the election of the returned candidate is held. The petitioner contends
that these two months expired on 10.05.2021 and the petitions, filed on
16.09.2021, are beyond limitation.
7. The Principal District Judge had held that while Section 71 (2) of
the Act stipulates the limitation as two months from the date of election, the
proviso to Section 71(2) extends the said period of limitation to two months
from the date of constitution of the Election Tribunal under Section 75 of the
Act. The Principal District Judge also notices that the said Election Tribunal
was constituted only on 07.09.2021 while the Election O.Ps were filed on
16.09.2021. After noticing these facts the Principal District Judge had held that
the Election Petitions are filed within the limitation. This Court does not find
any reason to disturb this finding, in view of the clear provisions of Section
71(2) and the proviso attached to 71(2) of the Act.
8. The petitioner relies upon the provisions of the Representation of
Peoples Act, 1951 and more specifically Section 81(3) of the said Act to
contend that every election petition should be accompanied by as many
RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.1576 & 1583/2024
copies as there are respondents and that it should also be accompanied by
various other documents required under the Representation of Peoples Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 20.12.2023 in C.R.P.No.691 of 2023. The
contention in that case was that the petition filed against the successful
candidate therein should be returned as the election petition was not in
accordance with law and that the law applicable in the said case was Section
20(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961. The Hon'ble
High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that Section 20(4) of the said Act which is
in pari materia with Section 81 of the Representation of Peoples Act is
mandatory, and non-compliance of Section 20(4) of the Madhya Pradesh
Municipal Corporation Act would result in the petition being dismissed. In the
present case, there is no such provision under the A.P. Municipal Corporation
Act. In such circumstances, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya
Pradesh would not be of any assistance.
9. The preamble to the Representation of the Peoples Act shows
that the Act has been enacted in relation to the elections to the Legislature of
the State and other matters. The said Act does not apply to the elections
conducted under the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act. The view of the Principal
District Judge, Chittoor, has also been the same.
10. In the circumstances, there are no merits in either of the revision
petitions. Accordingly these civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.1576 & 1583/2024
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
Js.
RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.1576 & 1583/2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1576 & 1583 of 2024
2nd August, 2024
Js.
