Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nimmaka Simhachalam vs Pamula Pushpa Sreevani on 15 October, 2024
APHC010198782019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
ELECTION PETITION NO: 20/2019
Between:
Nimmaka Simhachalam and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Pamula Pushpa Sreevani ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. J SATYA PRASAD
2. SRIMAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
N ASHWANI KUMAR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Election Petition is filed to declare the election of
respondent herein as Member of 11-Kurupam (ST) Legislative
Assembly Constituency, Vizianagaram District, Andhra
Pradesh, for which polling was held on 11.04.2019, to be null
and void, set aside the same and for costs.
2. The averments mentioned in the petition in brief are as
follows:
i). The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being Jatapu Tribes,
which is notified as Schedule Tribe under the
Constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order 1950 and Schedule
Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976, had contested for 11-
Kurupam (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency of
Vizianagaram District general elections held on
11.04.2019 from registered political parties i.e.,
Bharatiya Janata Party and Indian National Congress
respectively and remained as unsuccessful candidates.
The respondent was fielded from Y.S.R. Congress Party
and declared as duly elected.
ii). It is further submitted that the respondent is not
the member of notified Schedule Tribe in Presidential
Order, but she claims herself as belongs to Schedule
Tribe Community Konda Dora Sl.No.13 (ST). Section 5(a)
of Representation of People Act, 1951 provides
qualifications for membership of a Legislative Assembly.
According to it, a person shall not be qualified to be
chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State
in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes of
that State, he is a member of any of those Tribes, as the
case may be, and is an elector for any Assembly
Constituency in that State. As such, the respondent is
not qualified to contest in a reserved seat, which is
reserved for Scheduled Tribes in 11 Kurupam (ST)
Legislative Assembly Constituency, Vizianagaram District
in the State of Andhra Pradesh. But she contested in a
seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes.
iii). According to the definition of Article 342(1) of
Constitution of India, the President may with respect to
any State after consultation with the Governor by public
notification specify the tribes or tribal communities or
parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities
which shall for the purpose of this constitution be
deemed to be Schedule Tribes in relation to that State.
iv). The 2nd petitioner filed objections before Returning
Officer stating that the respondent nomination papers
have to be rejected complaining that respondent is not a
member of notified Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential
Order. But the Election Returning Officer has not
considered the said objections and improperly accepted
her nomination by passing order, dated 26.03.2019.
v). In fact, father of the respondent by name Pamula
Narayana Murthy is originally native of T.D.Parapuram
Village, Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District. But, he
migrated to Doramamidi Village, Buttayagudem Mandal
of West Godavari District and the respondent has
obtained Community, Nativity and Date of Birth
Certificate showing her caste as Kondadora Scheduled
Tribe. In fact, Konda Dora Tribes are only residing in
three districts i.e., Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam and
Srikakulam Districts and they are not available in West
Godavari District. But, the respondent produced Konda
Dora Tribe Certificate from Buttaigudem Mandal of West
Godavari District, which is invalid certificate, based on
which, she contested in Tribes Constituency and was
elected.
vi). The caste of the respondent's father was noted in
the school admission register as Konda, but the said
Konda caste was not notified in the Presidential order
issued under Article 342(1) of Constitution of India in the
State of Andhra Pradesh. As such, the respondent ought
not to have secured caste certificate as Konda Dora
either from West Godavari District or Srikakulam
District. There is no proof that respondent belongs to
Kondadora Tribe, except certificate obtained by her from
Buttaigudem Mandal of West Godavari District, which is
invalid in the eye of law.
vii). The sister of the respondent got selected to the post
of School Assistant in the year 2006. But, the Integrated
Tribal Development Authority, K.R.Puram, West Godavari
District rejected her selection stating that the caste
certificate submitted by her as Scheduled Tribe Konda
Dora was rejected.
viii). Under Section 5(a) of Representation of People Act
1951, the respondent is not qualified to be chosen to fill
a seat in Scheduled Tribe in terms of Presidential Order.
Hence, the Election Petition.
3. The respondent made her appearance by denying the
allegations in the petition and she contended in the written
statement in brief as follows:
i). The petition is not maintainable either under law
or facts. The respondent was born on 22.06.1986 in
Konda Dora Tribe Community. Her family celebrated 'Pilli
Pandaga', which is an important festival of Konda Dora
Tribe and her family members worship 'Pandavas' and
also pray to main deities such as 'Thalupulamma and
Mutyalamma', which are common and age-old practices
followed by the Konda Dora Tribe. Her ancestors are
permanent residents of T.D.Parapuram Village,
Palakonda Mandal of Srikakulam District.
ii). Her father pursued his preliminary education in
Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District, thereafter
pursued 4th class to 9th class at Zilla Parishad High
School, Srikakulam District and completed his 10th class
from Zilla Parishad High School at Pedapadu of West
Godavari District. After completion of education, the
father of the respondent joined ITDA Engineering
Division at Buttaigudem in ST Quota in the year, 1997
as Head Mazdoor and promoted as teacher under the ST
quota.
iii). The respondent and all her siblings are born at
Doramamidi Village, Buttaigudem Mandal of West
Godavari District after their father migrated from
T.D.Parapuram village, Palakonda Mandal of Srikakulam
District. They were pursued their primary and higher
education at Doramamidi village and their admission was
also under Konda Dora Tribe. The respondent also
secured job under the ST quota in Tribal Welfare
Residential School at Buttaigudem basing on her caste
status only.
iv). Initially, one Regu Maheswara Rao had challenged
the genuinety and correctness of the caste status of the
respondent before the District Collector, Eluru at West
Godavari District. The D.L.S.C. had gone into the root of
the matter to ascertain the origin of the respondent's
family and found that the respondent's roots were
genuinely from Konda Dora ST community and
submitted a report, dated 29.04.2021 to the District
Collector, Eluru of West Godavari District. Thereafter, the
District Collector, Eluru vide proceedings in
Roc.No.C2/e-1739206/2019, dated 09.05.2021 has also
declared that the respondent belongs to Konda Dora
Community and that respondent's caste status is
genuine and authentic.
v). On that, the said Regu Maheswara Rao has
preferred an appeal against the said order before the
Government and the Appellate Authority vide
G.O.Ms.No.6, Social Welfare (TW CB-II) Department,
dated 02.02.2022, upheld the orders of the District
Collector.
vi). Now, the present election petitioners along with the
said Regu Maheswara Rao has formed into a syndicate
with a sole aim and intent to constantly file petitions
against respondent only to deny her right enshrined
under the Constitution of India. The opposition parties
especially Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) through their
front men have further once again vindictively challenged
the said G.O.Ms.No.6, Social Welfare (TW CB-II)
Department, dated 02.02.2022, vide W.P.No.9475 of
2022 before this Court and the same is pending.
vii). It is further contended that this Court while trying
the present Election Petition, does not have power or
jurisdiction to decide the respondent's caste status and it
is beyond the scope and powers vested in this Court by
the Constitution of India and also People's
Representatives Act, 1951.
viii). The copy submitted by the petitioners to the
respondent does not disclose 'True Copy' under the
signature of the Election Petitioners and therefore, the
present Election Petition suffers from non-compliance of
Section 81(3) of the Peoples Representatives Act, 1951.
ix). The petitioners nowhere stated or pleaded that the
impugned election is materially affected by accepting the
respondent's nomination by the Returning Officer.
Hence, there is no cause of action to file the present
election petition as the objection raised by the petitioners
was duly considered by the Returning Officer who passed
a detailed order while accepting respondent's
candidature for nomination. Hence, prays to dismiss the
petition.
4. In reply, the 2nd petitioner filed rejoinder denying the
averments made in the written statement and contended in
brief as follows:
i). In the school admission and withdrawals register of
father of respondent and siblings of father of respondent
it is mentioned in 12th column as 'Konda' community,
but not as 'Konda Dora Tribe'.
ii). The order from the Government was obtained in
favour of respondent by misusing her power as she acted
as Minister for Tribal Welfare during that relevant period.
iii). The authorities have suspected the genuinety of
the caste certificate of respondent's sister, and as such,
they denied her candidature in DSC 2006 and requested
the RDO, Jangareddygudem to verify the genuinety of her
caste certificate.
5. After considering the pleadings of both the parties, the
following issues are framed for enquiry on 02.03.2023:
i).Whether the respondent's nomination was
improperly accepted by the Returning Officer?
ii).Whether the said improper acceptance of
nomination materially affected the result of the
election?
iii).Whether the respondent is a member of the
Scheduled Tribe called Konda Dora?
iv).Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to decide
on the "Caste Status" of the respondent?
v).Whether the failure to mention "True Copy" under
the signature; alleged failure to verify the Election
Petition etc., are fatal to the petitioners case? and
vi).To what relief?
6. In view of the orders passed in I.A.No.5 of 2023, the
following additional issues are framed on 12.12.2023:
i).Whether the issue of status of caste of the returned
candidate be gone into when there is no challenge or
alteration to the caste certificate issued to the
returned candidate?
ii).Whether the Election Tribunal constituted under
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 has jurisdiction
to directly or incidentally declare the caste status of
the candidate, which has been confirmed by the
competent authority under the Andhra Pradesh
(Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward
Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community
Certificates Act, 1993? and
iii).Whether the Election Petition is presented in
conformity with the provisions of the Representation
of Peoples Act, 1951?
7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners,
P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined, Exs.A.1 to A.7 are exhibited and
during cross examination of R.W.1 and R.W.5, Exs.A.8 to A.10,
X.5 and X.6 are also marked. On behalf of the respondent,
R.Ws.1 to 5 are examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11, X.1 to X.4 are
exhibited.
8. Heard Sri J.Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel and
Sri Sriman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
9. From the very beginning of the arguments, it is urged by
Sri N.Aswani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent that
the period of term of the Member of Legislative Counsel who
got elected in the year, 2019 including the respondent was
expired on 04th day of June 2024. Therefore, by virtue of expiry
of five (5) year term of the respondent by 04th day of June
2024, no relief can be granted in the election petition and that
it has become infructuous.
10. It is not in dispute that the term of Member of Legislative
counsel elected in 2019 including the respondent is expired by
04th day of June 2024. If that is so, the election petition filed
against the respondent became infructuous. Drawing a
reference on the said aspect, it is apposite to refer certain
authoritative pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kashi Nath Mishra v. Vikramaditya Pandey1,
wherein a three-Judge Bench dismissed an election appeal as
infructuous, where the term of Assembly expired by efflux of
time and another election was held and another Assembly was
constituted.
11. Another three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court
in Romesh v. Ramesh K. Rana2, wherein the request was for
recount of votes without any allegations of commission of any
corrupt practice and in the meanwhile when the Assembly
itself was dissolved, the Apex Court considered that nothing
further survives for consideration and dismissed the election
appeal.
12. In Mundrika Singh Yadav v. Shiv Bachan Yadav3,
again the relief of recount was sought for, but in the
meanwhile, the term of Assembly was over and fresh elections
were being held. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
1 (1998) 8 SCC 735
(2000) 9 SCC 265
(2005) 12 SCC 211
appeal to be infructuous, as no relief can be allowed to the
election petitioner even if election appeal is allowed.
13. The above precedents are not expressed elaborately, but
the uniform judicial approach seems to discourage any
continuance of the election petitions to their logical conclusion
in the absence of allegations of commission of any corrupt
practice, when the Legislative Body ceased to exist or fresh
elections took place or a fresh House came into existence. In
the present case on hand, in the light of the approach of the
above pronouncements, since the term of Andhra Pradesh
Legislative Assembly elected in 2019 itself has expired, and a
fresh election was being held and a new Legislative Assembly
was elected in 2024, thereby, the present election petition has
to fail as infructuous.
14. However, since this Court is compelled to decide the
present election petition on merits by the learned counsel on
both sides by appreciating the material on record, the issues
framed supra are answered as under.
15. ISSUE No.5:
Whether the failure to mention "True Copy" under the
signature as well alleged failure to verify the Election
Petition are fatal to the petitioners' case?
The first defense taken in the reply by the elector is that
the signature as well alleged failure to verify the Election
Petition are fatal to the petitioners' case. Thereby, this court is
answering the said point first. On this aspect, it is apt to
mention an authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court,
which has explained the legal position in that regard in
paragraph 8 of its judgment in the case of Ram Sukh v.
Dinesh Aggarwal4, which reads as follows:
"8. Before examining the merits of the issues raised
on behalf of the election petitioner with reference to
the relevant statutory provisions, it would be
appropriate to bear in mind the observations of this
Court in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh. AIR 1954
SUPREME COURT 210 Speaking for the Constitution
Bench, Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J., had said that the
statutory requirement of election law must be strictly
4 2009 (10) SCC 541
observed, and that the election contest is not an
action at law or a suit in equity, but is purely a
statutory proceeding unknown to the common law
and that the Court possesses no common law power.
It is also well settled that the success of a candidate
who has won at an election should not be lightly
interfered with and any petition seeking such
interference must strictly conform to the requirements
of the law. Nevertheless, it is also to be borne in mind
that one of the essentials of the election law is to
safeguard the purity of the election process and,
therefore, the courts must zealously ensure that
people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of that
law or by indulging in corrupt practices, as
enumerated in the Act."
16. For this issue, in paragraph No.19 of the written
statement, the respondent has taken specific defence that in
the copy which was submitted by the election petitioners to
this respondent does not disclose 'True Copy' under the
signature of the election petitioners in the above election
petition. Therefore, the above election petition suffers from
non-compliance of Section 81(3) of Representation of Peoples
Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "R.P.Act") and hence, the
election petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. On which, the learned counsel for the election petitioners
argued that no doubt the provision itself speaks that the
election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies
thereof as that of number of respondents mentioned in the
petition and every such copy shall be attested by the
petitioners under their own signatures to be a 'true copy' of the
petition. But, the purport of provision is to furnish a true copy
of the petition is, not to frustrate the cause of the petitioners
approaching the Court by adhering strictly to technicalities of
little consequences.
18. In this connection, it should be kept in mind that the
purport of verified election petition is that the respondent must
have correct idea of the allegations and that he/she may not be
misled by any material aspect by furnishing of a copy of the
affidavit which may not be a correct copy having vital variation
from the original. For that reason, the "True Copy" under the
signature as well verified the Election Petition has to be filed.
19. It is true that in the matters relating to elections and
election petitions, strict compliance of the legal provisions is
necessary and full care is to be taken to see that rights of an
elected representative are not lightly disturbed and rightly so.
But an election petition is not to be thrown at the threshold on
the slightest pretext of one kind or the other, which may or
may not have any material bearing on the factors to be strictly
adhered to in such matters. If it is permitted otherwise, the
returned candidate would only be in the lookout
microscopically for any kind of technical lacuna or defect to
abort the endeavor of the petitioners to bring to trial the issues
relating to corrupt practices in the elections.
20. The purpose of the law, on this point, cannot be to allow
the returned candidate to avoid the trial of the issues of
corrupt practices raised against him on the basis of any little
defect which may not result in any vital variation between the
original and the true copy so as to have the effect of misleading
the returned candidate. As it is, the prevailing situation of
elections and practices often said to be adopted now and then
and here and there does not always give a very happy picture.
Free, fair and fearless election is ideal to be achieved and not
to be defeated for the sake of pretentious and frivolous
technicalities.
21. In this connection, the Constitutional Bench judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muraka Radhey Shyam Ram
Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore5, at paragraph No.14 observed
that:
"14. .......... The certified copy of the rejection of the
nomination paper was verified to be a true copy and we
fail to see how any further signature of the petitioner was
necessary thereon. It is obvious to us that a copy of the
vakalatnama was not required under sub-s. (3) of section
81 nor was it necessary to make a further endorsement
that two copies of the petition had been filed along with
the petition. It is not disputed that copies as required by
sub-s.(3) of section 81 were filed. The only' grievance
5AIR 1964 SC 1545
made is that the endorsement "two copies" was not
repeated in the enclosure portion of the copy served on
the appellant. We have already explained what is meant
by the word " copy" in sub-s. (3) of section 81 and we are
of the view that the defects pointed out on behalf of the
appellant are not of such a character as to invalidate the
copy which was served on the appellant in the present
case."
22. From the above, it is clear that failure to mention "True
Copy" under the signature is not a defect, which is not fatal
and would not affect the maintainability of the election
petition. To the said effect, there is another pronouncement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhikaji Keshao Joshi v.
Brijlal Nandlal Biyani6, wherein the five Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "this is a curable defect".
23. In the present case on hand, on verifying the testimony
of the respondent, she did not take any such specific defence
that the word "True Copy" was not mentioned in the copy
supplied to her and no evidence was placed on record to show
6AIR 1955 SC 610
that the copy of the election petition served upon her was
materially affected. No material averments mentioned in her
(respondent) testimony, only bare plea taken in the written
statement. Based on such averment in the written statement,
the above issue was framed, however, subsequently, when
come to the testimony of the respondent, who has taken such
defence in the written statement, has not testified anything
that because of non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the R.P.
Act, affected her case as well which is fatal to the petitioners'
case.
24. Therefore, as already stated supra, it is only a defect,
which can be corrected in accordance with principle of Civil
Procedure Code and more so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above pronouncements has categorically observed that it is
not fatal and would not affect the maintainability of the
election petition.
25. More so, the crux of the issue in the main election
petition raised is about the caste status of the respondent and
respondent is thus aware of the issue involved. Therefore,
simply because a copy supplied was not signed as 'True Copy'
nor verified by the petitioners does not go to root of the case of
the petitioners rather it will be fatal to the petitioners' case.
Moreover, the entire purpose of the verification and stating
"True Copy" is only to ensure that the opposite party has not
taken up by surprise and that, what is served on the
respondent is an accurate true copy of the petition filed into
the Court.
26. In this connection, there is also another judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch.Subarao v. Member, Election
Tribunal, Hyderabad7, wherein it was clearly held that "if
there is substantial compliance which requirement under
Section 81(3) of the Act, the election petition cannot be
dismissed under Section 90(3) of R.P. Act." Thus, this issue is
answered accordingly.
AIR 1964 SC 1027
27. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1:
Whether the Election Petition is presented in
conformity with the provisions of the Representation of
Peoples Act, 1951?
The election petition is filed under Sections 80-A, 81,
r/w.5(a) and 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951. On this issue, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the election petition ought to have been filed
under Section 100(1)(d) instead of under Section 100(1)(a) of
the R.P.Act, thereby the petition is liable to be dismissed.
28. In this context, it is not out of place to refer Section
100(1)(a) of the R.P. Act deals that:
100.Grounds for declaring election to be void.-- [(1)
Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if [the High
Court] is of the opinion-
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate
was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to
fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or the
Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of
1963).
29. Also, section 100(1) (d) of the R.P.Act reads as follows:
(d) that the result of the election, in so far, as it
concerns a returned candidate, has been materially
affected-
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination,
or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the
interests of the returned candidate [by an agent
other than his election agent], or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of
any vote or the reception of any vote which is void,
or
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of
the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or
orders made under this Act.
30. Section 5(a) of Representation of People Act, 1951
provides qualifications for membership of a Legislative
Assembly. According to it, a person shall not be qualified to be
chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State in
the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes of that
State, unless he is a member of any of those Tribes, as the
case may be and is an elector for any Assembly Constituency
in that State.
31. In view of the above, the case falls under Section
100(1)(a) is also one of the subject of decision of this Court,
because the case of the petitioners mainly rests upon non
qualification of the respondent to contest the seat reserved for
Schedule Tribe. When the question is about the social status
of the respondent, which in turn, needs to be verified on the
basis of the material on record, that too in accordance with the
relevant provisions of law as indicated above, the petition
under Section 100(1)(d) of the R.P.Act is totally impermissible.
Thereby, the Election Petition is presented in conformity with
the provisions of the R.P.Act. Thus, this issue is answered.
32. ISSUE No.4 and ADDITIONAL ISSUE NOs.1 & 2:
4).Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to decide on
the "Caste Status" of the respondent?
1).Whether the issue of status of caste of the returned
candidate be gone into when there is no challenge or
alteration to the caste certificate issued to the returned
candidate?
2).Whether the Election Tribunal constituted under
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 has jurisdiction to
directly or incidentally declare the caste status of the
candidate, which has been confirmed by the competent
authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of
Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993?
33. To answer these issues, it is to be noted that under
Article 173 of the Constitution prescribes the qualification for
membership of the State Legislature and provides that a
person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the
legislature of a State unless he/she is a citizen of India, not
less than 25 years of age, and possesses such other
qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under
any law made by Parliament.
34. Section 5 of the R.P. Act made by Parliament prescribes
the qualification for membership of a Legislative Assembly. It
provides that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill
a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State, reserved for the
Scheduled Tribes of that State, unless he/she is a member of
any of those Scheduled Tribes and he/she is an elector for any
assembly constituency in that State.
35. Section 100 of the Act enumerates the grounds for
declaring an election to be void. Clause (a) of sub-section (1)
thereof provides that if the High Court is of the opinion that on
the date of his/her election, a return candidate was not
qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under
the Constitution or under the Act, the High Court shall declare
the elections of the returned candidate to be void. Thus, if a
candidate, who contests the election, representing
himself/herself by belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, is shown in
a proceeding contesting his/her election, as not belonging to a
Scheduled Tribe of the State, his/her election is liable to be
declared as void.
36. So, in a case of seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe, such
Scheduled Tribe has to contest in the election, representing
himself/herself belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, if the elector
questions the contested candidate is not a Scheduled Tribe
person by placing evidence, then High Court has to appreciate
such evidence on record to decide whether the contesting
candidate is belongs to Schedule Tribe or not and if so, if the
candidate, who contested in a reserved seat has to prove
her/his caste status. Then automatically the Court has to
decide the caste status irrespective of competent authority
decided the caste status or not, on individually can decide on
the basis of material placed on record. In those circumstances,
this Court has jurisdiction to decide the caste status of the
returned candidate i.e., respondent herein.
37. When question arises regarding the status of the caste of
returned candidate (respondent), and where there is a
challenge with regard to the caste status of the returned
candidate, this Court while deciding the election petition has to
decide such fact whether the respondent is a Scheduled Tribe
person or not and is entitled to contest for such seat reserved
for the Scheduled Tribe under Section 5(a) of the R.P. Act.
38. In the present case on hand, the caste status of the
respondent is specifically challenged in this election petition
and contended that respondent is not a Scheduled Tribe and
not a qualified candidate to contest in a reserved seat for
Scheduled Tribe in 11-Kurupam (ST) Legislative Assembly
Constituency, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. The
main contention of the petitioners is that the respondent is not
entitled to contest in a reserved seat for Scheduled Tribe and
was declared as member of the legislative assembly for the said
constituency, which is contrary to law and thereby, the
election of the respondent shall be declared as void.
39. The case of the respondent in the written statement as
well in her testimony is that her father Sri P.Narayana Murthy,
her mother Gouri Parvathi belongs to Scheduled Tribe and her
parents was blessed with three daughters and one son and all
her siblings along with her were all born at Doramamidi
Village, Buttaigudem Mandal of West Godavari District. Herself
and her siblings pursued primary and higher education at
Doramamidi village and also secured job in Schedule Tribe
quota based on her caste status. She further testified that
since her birth she was brought up in and around tribal areas,
the 'competent authority' after thorough enquiry in the
village of her ancestors confirmed that she belongs to ST
'Konda Dora' community and then only issued caste certificate
in her favour and her family members.
40. More so, one Regu Maheswara Rao had initially
challenged the genuinety and correctness of her caste status
before the District Collector, Eluru of West Godavari District
and upon such challenge, an enquiry was called for by the
District Level Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as
"DLSC") on her social status and the DLSC has gone into the
root of the matter to ascertain the origin of her family and after
verification of the register from M.P.P. Elementary School,
T.D.Parapuram, Palakonda Mandal of Srikakulam District,
where her father Sri P.Narayana Murthy studied, found that
prior to the admission of her father in the said school, his elder
brother Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was admitted in the
said school on 30.06.1956, against his admission, his caste
was recorded as "Konda Dora" and religion to be Hindu.
Having been convinced with the said entry, the DLSC resolved
to conclude that her roots were genuinely from "Konda Dora"
ST Community and submitted a report to the District Collector,
West Godavari District at Eluru.
41. Ex.B.3 is the attested copy of caste certificate, which
discloses the caste of the respondent as that of "Konda Dora".
As long as Caste Certificate issued to the first respondent is
not cancelled or varied, it cannot be said that she does not or
ceased to belong to ST community.
42. No material or otherwise is placed on record to show that
if any independent enquiry into the validity or otherwise of the
Caste Certificate issued to the 1st respondent is undertaken
and decided that she does not belong to Schedule Tribe, then,
in this Election Petition, if it is taken up, it would result in a
parallel exercise, one by the machinery provided for under the
Act and the other by this Court. While proceedings under the
State Act by the competent authority therein conforms to that
Act, an enquiry by this Court would be at the teeth of several
provisions of the State Act. Besides, during cross examination
of RW1, she consistently states that her father Sri P.Narayana
Murthy belongs to "Konda Dora" community and her father
intimated that they belongs to "Konda Dora" community. No
contra material is placed on record by the petitioners in this
petition denying the said statement.
43. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that Ex.B.3 caste certificate was not
conclusive and binding on the proceedings under R.P. Act,
because Ex.B.3 document was said to be given for a candidate
seeking admission into educational institutions, against the
vacancies or, as the case may be, the seats reserved for the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backwards Classes
and whereas, by securing such employment or admission on
the basis of false community certificates the benefits of special
provisions made for the advancement of the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes in the matter of
public employment and educational opportunities are not
reaching such Castes, Tribes and the Backward Classes and
for that purpose only, the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of issue
Community Certificates Act, 1993 was enacted. Therefore, the
respondent cannot be relied upon Ex.B.3 document.
44. This Court also perused the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of
issue Community Certificates Act, 1993(Act No.16 of 1993).
May be in the foreword of the said Act No.16 of 1993 enacted
by the Government says, 'to regulate the issue of Community
Certificate for the people belongs to such a specific category
and to curb/prohibit for producing false community
certificates to acquire employment or seats in educational
institutions'. Therefore, in order to curb such candidates who
produced false certificates, Act No.16 of 1993 was enacted.
But, nowhere it is stated in the said Act that it cannot be used
for election, even by the petitioners, by placing any evidence
that the said certificate cannot be used rather cannot be
looked into for Assembly Election. The petitioners did not
summon any of the concerned authorities to make believe
rather to prove that the respondent does not belong to
Scheduled Tribe Community. If really, the petitioners are
seriously challenging the caste certificate of the respondent
and the caste certificate relied upon by her needs to be
ignored, the petitioners ought to have summoned the
concerned to prove that the respondent does not belong to
Scheduled Tribe as contended by them.
45. It is also brought to the notice of this Court through the
testimony of respondent (R.W.1) that W.P.No.9475 of 2022 is
said to be filed by one Regu Maheswara Rao, T.Rama Rao and
one H.Neelakanteswara Rao against Government of Andhra
Pradesh, District Collector, District Level Scrutiny Committed
and the respondent herein. If really the petitioners are
challenging the caste certificate said to be obtained by the
respondent vindictively or false document is produced, the
petitioners might have been challenged the same by way of
writ. But they did not do so.
46. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the status of the caste of the
respondent/returned candidate can be looked into and though
the caste certificate is challenged, no material is placed on
record by the petitioners to doubt it and that in order to
comply Section 5 of the R.P. Act, the caste certificate placed on
record by the respondent was considered by the returning
authority. Whereas, according to the petitioners, the
authorities have not properly considered the objection and
improperly accepted her nomination by passing order dated
26.03.2019. To buttress the said contention, the petitioners
neither placed any material nor any document or evidence to
show that the respondent is not a member of notified
Scheduled Tribe, and thereby, the Election Returning Officer
did not consider their objection.
47. So far as this Court is concerned, the point raised is that
earlier the Election Tribunal was constituted under the R.P.
Act 43 of 1951, and subsequent to its abolishment, the
elections petitions are transferred to the High Court.
48. Furthermore, the High Court hearing an election petition
is not an "authority" and it remains High Court while trying an
election petition under the R.P.Act. Jurisdiction of High Court
to try an election petition is an extension of original
jurisdiction of High Court to hear and decide election disputes.
Inherent power of High Court is not taken away when election
disputes are adjudicated as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mairembam Prithviraj v. Pukhrem Sharatchandra
Singh8. In view of having power vested, this Court has
jurisdiction directly or incidentally to declare the caste status
8(2017) 2 SCC 487
of the respondent. Thus, these issues are answered
accordingly.
49. ISSUE No.3:
Whether the respondent is a member of the Scheduled
Tribe called 'Konda Dora'?
50. The core issue in the present election petition is with
regard to caste status of the respondent. To fortify their case,
the 2nd petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got exhibited
Exs.A.1 to A.4 and A.7. He reiterated the averments of the
petition in his affidavit.
51. Ex.A.1 is the registration extract of the sale deed dated
29.02.1956, based on which, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that in Ex.A.1 registration extract, it
is mentioned that the father of the respondent belongs to
Konda caste and the same was not challenged by the
respondent. On perusal of Ex.A.1, it is the transaction between
one Jogamma and Pamula Seetharamadasu and his sons. In
the said document it is mentioned that they are residents of
Palakonda Thalavaram Dari Parapuram and belongs to 'Konda
kulam'. But the said sale deed is not a criteria to decide the
caste status of the respondent as it is not an authenticated
document to rely upon and decide the caste status of the
respondent.
52. However, P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.A.7 extract of the
Admission and Withdrawal Register of the M.P.P. Elementary
School, T.D.Parapuram, Palakonda Mandal, wherein, it was
mentioned that Sri Pamula Narayana Murthy,
S/o.Seethamdasu is resident of Parapuram, and he was
admitted in school on 20.06.1960 and that in the column of
caste it was mentioned as "Konda". Even in Ex.A.8, which was
marked through R.W.1 during cross examination, it is
mentioned against the name of Mohanadasu Gandhi that he is
resident of Parapuram, in the column of caste "Konda" as well
in Ex.A.9, which was also marked through R.W.1 during cross
examination, it is mentioned against the name of Vivekananda,
S/o.Seethamdasu, resident of Parapuram, in the column of
caste, it is mentioned as "Konda". But, the said documents
relied on by the petitioners itself is itself is not sufficient to say
that the respondent is not a member of the scheduled Tribe.
Because the above-mentioned names in Exs.A.7 to A.9 against
the column of caste are not testified that they do not belong to
schedule Tribe community or other than the caste of schedule
Tribe.
53. During cross examination of P.W.1, he testified that he
is not acquainted personally with the family members of the
respondent. It is true that as per Ex.A.3 copy of Form 21-E
result of selection, he is in the fifth position and got less than
the NOTA votes. Except the above self-interested and bare
testimony of P.W.1, no substantial material was produced by
him to fortify their case.
54. Even on perusal of Ex.A.5 extract of Census of India,
1951 produced by P.W.2 Director of Census Operations
Tamilnadu, at page No.5 of Ex.A.5, the caste 'Konda' is
mentioned in the Glossary of Caste Names of Srikakulam
District and the same is admitted by P.W.2. It is also evident in
the said page of Ex.A.5 that the caste 'Konda Dora' is also
there in the Glossary of Caste Names of Srikakulam District.
Thereby, the castes 'Konda' as well 'Konda Dora' are available
in the Glossary of Caste Names of Srikakulam District. It is not
in dispute that no material was placed on record; to support of
the pleading 'Konda' is not included in schedule Tribe or even
no document is filed by the petitioners to show that 'Konda' is
not included in the schedule tribe. On perusal of Ex.A.5 at
page No.5 it is categorical that the word Konda, Konda Dora,
Konda Chencu, Konda Gudiya, Konda Mangali and Konda
Raju are backward classes in Srikakulam District.
55. The testimony of P.W.3-Deputy Director, ITDA, Tribal
Welfare, is to the extent to bring the fact that one Pamula
Rama Tulasi, who is sister of the respondent, whose name is
mentioned in Ex.A.6 attested copy of the proceedings in
R.C.No.A5/07/2014, dated 28.05.2014, was not selected to the
post of teacher. He further testified that her candidature was
rejected for the reason mentioned in the said document that
the candidate had produced a certificate that she belongs to
'Konda Dora' community, but there are no people who belong
to 'Konda Dora' Community in West Godavari District. He
further testified that it is not mentioned in Ex.A.6 that the
candidate did not produce the 'Local Area Certificate". The
Local Area Certificate is only useful for determining the local
residence of the applicant and not for determining the caste
status.
56. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.3 categorically shows
that the candidature of said Pamula Rama Tulasi was rejected
only due to non-production of 'Local Area Certificate'. Because
of rejection of her candidate for the said reason, the caste
status of either Pamula Rama Tulasi or respondent herein
cannot be decided. Thereby, the testimony of P.W.3 as well
Ex.A.6 is of no use to prove the case of the petitioners in any
way.
57. In view of the above discussion, it is in vivid terms that
the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and documents relied upon by
the petitioners shows that there are 'Konda' as well 'Konda
Dora' castes available in the Glossary of Caste Names of
Srikakulam District who belongs to schedule Tribe and the
ancestors of respondent are permanent residents of said area.
But they are no way related to denying the caste status
claimed by the respondent.
58. On the other hand, to prove her caste status as claimed,
the respondent got herself examined as R.W.1 and exhibited
Exs.B.1 to B.11. In her chief examination, she reiterated her
counter averments and stated that her forefathers hailed from
T.D.Parapuram Village, Palakonda mandal of Srikakulam
District and they belong to S.T. 'Konda Dora' Community. Her
primary, secondary and higher education was pursued from
Tribal Welfare Schools and Institutions only. They also used to
celebrate festival of 'Konda Dora' Tribe community as 'Pilli
Pandaga'. After completion of education, her father joined in
ITDA Engineering Division at Buttaigudem in ST quota in the
year, 1977 as Head Mazdoor. Later he was promoted as
teacher under ST quota and worked in the said position in
Tribal Welfare Residential School. It is further contended that
R.W.1 and her siblings were born at Doramamidi Village,
Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District after her father
migrated from T.D.Parapuram Village, Palakonda Mandal of
Srikakulam District. She also secured job under ST quota in
Tribal Welfare School at Buttaigudem. The competent
authority after through enquiry in the village of their
ancestors, confirmed that she belongs to ST 'Konda Dora'
community and issued caste/nativity certificates in her favour.
59. On the complaint of one Regu Maheswara Rao, due to
political vendetta, the DLSC after verifying the extract of
admission register of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, who said to
be senior paternal uncle of the respondent/ who is her father's
elder brother, found that he belongs to ST 'Konda Dora'
community and submitted report to the District Collector,
Eluru of West Godavari District. Thereafter the District
Collector, Eluru vide proceedings in Roc.No.C2/e-
1739206/2019, dated 09.05.2021 declared that her caste is
genuine and authentic. The order of the District collector was
appealed before the Government by the said Maheswara Rao
and the appellate authority vide G.O.Ms.No.6, Social Welfare
(TW CB-II) Department, dated 02.02.2022, upheld the orders of
the District Collector. Thereby, the present election petition
requires no further adjudication on the caste status of the
respondent and the same is liable for dismissal.
60. During cross examination of R.W.1, Ex.A.8 certified copy
of Admissions and Withdrawals was marked, she testified that
entry at Serial No.30 name mentioned as Mohan Das Gandhi
and at column No.12 caste mentioned as 'Konda'. She also
testified that she enquired with her father Narayana Murthy
regarding her senior paternal uncle's document, he told her
that they belong to 'Konda Dora' community and he is being
minor by that time, he does not know whether it is mentioned
as 'Konda Dora' or 'Konda' and since the column is also small,
it might be mentioned as 'Konda' only. In the same lines,
Exs.A.9 and A.10 pertaining to Pamula Vivekananda and
Pamula Anasuya, who are junior paternal uncle and paternal
aunt of R.W.1 respectively and they are confronted through
her. In all, nothing incriminating material was elicited during
cross examination of R.W.1 to disbelieve her testimony to prove
her caste status.
61. Moreover, on perusal of Ex.B.1 Transfer Certificate, it is
evident that she completed her 10th class in Tribal Welfare
High School, Doramamidi village of West Godavari District.
Ex.B.1 was enclosed with Migration Certificate issued by
Tahsildar Palakonada Mandal of Srikakulam District, dated
20.07.2008 stating that her father migrated from
T.D.Parapuram Village of Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam
District to Doramamidi Village of Buttaigudem Mandal of West
Godavari District and he belongs to ST 'Konda Dora'.
62. On perusal of Ex.B.3 caste certificate of Pamula
Narayana Murthy, who is father of respondent, it reveals that
he belongs to ST Konda Dora Tribe community. The Exs.B.4,
B.7, B.5 and B.9 attested copies of admission register and
Transfer certificate of Pamula Venkata Rama Tulasi, Transfer
Certificate of Pamula Sujana and Transfer Certificate of
Pamula Prudvi Raj, who are sisters and brother of respondent,
respectively shows that they studied in Tribal Welfare School in
Doramamidi Village.
63. More so, on perusal of Exs.B.6, B.8 and B.10 attested
copies of Community, Nativity and Birth Certificates of Pamula
Venkata Rama Tulasi, Pamula Sujana and Pamula Prudvi Raj
respectively shows that they belong to 'Konda Dora'
community, which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe under the
Constitution of (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950, SCs, STs list
(Modification) order 1956 and S.Ts. (Amendment) Act, 1956 as
amended from time to time and they are native of Doramamidi
Village, Buttaigudem Mandal of West Godavari District.
64. Coming to Ex.B.11 Community, Nativity and Date of
Birth Certificate of respondent, it shows that she belongs to
Konda Dora-ST community and native of Doramamidi Village
of Buttaigudem Mandal. As per the testimony of R.W.1, by the
year 2001, Ex.B.1 was issued to her and by that time, there is
a format for caste certificate and in that format original of
Ex.B.11 was issued to her. It is also admitted by R.W.1 that
Ex.B.3 caste certificate was given to her father in year, 2008.
It is also testified by R.W.1 during her cross examination that
since they were not born in schedule area, the then A.P.O.,
Social Welfare Department refused the appointment of her
sister and that schedule area certificate and caste certificate
are two different concepts.
65. Now, it is relevant to refer the testimony of R.W.4, who is
Headmaster of Sri Kakarala Chandrasekhar Rao Zilla Parishad
High School, Pedapadu Village, Eluru District. He produced
Ex.X.3 original Transfer Certificate bearing No.7870234
relating to Pamula Narayana Murthy, wherein at column No.5,
it is mentioned as 'S.T. Girijan'. However, on perusal of
testimony of R.W.5, who is Administrative Officer, ITDA,
K.R.Puram of Eluru District, there are three service volumes
relating to P.Narayana Murthy, Ex.X.4 is the relevant page in
second volume of original Service Register of P.Narayana
Murthy, wherein it is mentioned as caste: 'Konda Dora',
certificate issued by M.R.O. Buttaigudem (495/89, dated
24.11.1989), which was separately written and nothing was
elicited to disbelieve Exs.X.3 to X.5. As per the testimony of
R.Ws.4 and 5 coupled with Exs.X.3 to X.5 and B.3 it can be
categorically held that the father of respondent belongs to ST
community.
66. Furthermore, R.W.3-Project Officer, ITDA produced
certified copy of proceedings in R.C.No.T9/357/ITDA, dated
30.04.2021 testifying that his predecessor had examined the
documents of father of the respondent prior to the year 2000,
thereafter, proceedings under Ex.X.2 was issued. Except to put
suggestion that while issuing Ex.X.2 his predecessor in officer
before whom the documents were filed, which were not
properly verified, and Ex.X.2 was issued based on the recent
origin documents, nothing was elicited to disbelieve the claim
of the respondent.
67. Even on perusal of Ex.X.2, which is enclosed with several
documents submitted by the respondent, shows that on the
instructions of District Collector and Magistrate, West
Godavari District, on the representation made by one Regu
Maheswara Rao and R.Mani Singh, the Project Officer as a
Chairman along with The Deputy Director (Social Welfare),
Eluru, The Deputy Director (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram and
The Deputy Director (BC.Wel) Eluru as members, conducted
detailed enquiry to determine the caste status of the
respondent, concluded that the respondent belongs to "Konda
Dora" ST community and the community claim of her is
genuine. Further, as per Ex.X.2, on the request made by DLSA,
the respondent had produced several document twenty in
number to prove her claim and made detailed affidavit about
her origin.
68. It is also the contention of petitioners therein that the
father of the respondent does not belong to 'Konda Dora'
community and in his school admission register it is
mentioned only as 'Konda', thereby, the respondent herein
does not belong to 'Konda Dora' community.
69. On that, the DLSC called for the admission register from
Elementary School, TD Parapuram, Palakonda Mandal of
Srikakulam District, in which, the name of Narayana Murthy
reflects and it is found that prior to admission of Narayana
Murthy into the said school, his elder brother by name
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa got admitted in same school, vide
admission number 34 dated 30.06.1956 and his caste was
recorded as Hindu "Konda Dora", which clearly shows that he
belongs to "Konda Dora" ST community. The DLSC also called
for enquiry with the Revenue Authorities from Palakonda and
the RDO, Palakonda made an enquiry and submitted that
Pamula Narayan Murthy belongs to "Konda Dora" community
(ST). Thereby, basing on the overall material produced by the
respondent before the authority and the reports submitted by
the authorities, the DLSC made a conclusion that the
respondent belongs to "Konda Dora" ST community and no
material is placed on record to disbelieve the said enquiry
report made by DLSC.
70. Further, R.W.2-District Collector, Eluru produced Ex.X.2
certified copy of proceedings in R.C.No.C2/e-1739206/2019,
dated 10.05.2021 and he testified during cross examination
that if one person intended to obtain a caste certificate, he has
to apply through Online by Mee-Seva/now called as Village
Ward Secretariat; thereafter the said application will be
forwarded to V.R.O for local enquiry and verification of
supporting documents, thereafter he will submit report to
Revenue Inspector, after his verification, it will be forwarded to
Tahsildar, who in-turn will issue the caste certificate. He
further admitted that if the competent authority feels further
enquiry is necessary, he shall then examine the school records,
birth registration certificate, if any, and also examine the
parent/guardian or applicant in relation to his/her/their
community as per Rule 5(b) of A.P. (Schedule Caste, Schedule
Tribes and Backwards Classes) issue to Community, Nativity
and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997. He also testified that
a person belongs to one District, he may also approach another
District for Caste Certificate if they are residing in that District.
His predecessor in officer by name Karthikeya Misra after
perusing the enquiry report by DLSC, issued the said
proceedings. In the entire cross examination, nothing
incriminating was elicited to deny the said proceedings.
71. In that view, even though in the pleadings, the
petitioners have categorically taken a plea that the respondent
ought not to have secured the caste certificate as "Konda Dora"
either from West Godavari District or Srikakulam District. But
there is no proof to say that the respondent does not belong to
"Konda Dora" Tribe and Ex.B.11 is an invalid document, and
in view of the categorical testimony of R.W.2, the respondent
can obtain caste certificate, where she is residing i.e.,
Buttaigudem of West Godavari District. More so, in support of
the above allegation, no material was placed on record by the
petitioners, except taking the said plea.
72. Now, on perusal of Ex.X.1, which is enclosed with several
documents, as per the instructions, the Chairmen & Project
Officer, DLSC, ITDA, KR.Puram has called for hearing and
conducted enquiry on the social status of the respondent and
submitted report stating that the scrutiny committee
unanimously finalized basing on its findings that the
community claim of respondent is genuine and belongs to
"Konda Dora" ST Community. Basing on the said findings and
conclusion made by DL.SC and in exercise of powers conferred
under sub rule 7 of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh (SC/ST & BC)
Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate
Rules, 1997 (G.O.Ms.NO.58, Social Welfare (J), dt: 12th May
1997), it is confirmed by the then District Collector that the
Community claim of the respondent is genuine one. It is not in
dispute that the said proceedings were also upheld by the
Government in the appeal preferred by one Regu Maheswara
Rao.
73. Having regard to the above discussion, it is not a matter
in issue to decide whether "Konda" is a community belongs to
schedule Tribe, when the respondent categorically proved her
caste status as "Konda Dora" ST community, and the
petitioners herein failed to discard the claim made by the
respondent regarding her caste status in anyway. However, as
discussed supra, it is evident from Ex.A.5, the caste 'Konda' is
also a ST community in and around Srikakulam District.
Thus, this issue is answered in favour of respondent and
against the petitioners.
74. ISSUE NOs.1 & 2:
i).Whether the respondent's nomination was
improperly accepted by the Returning Officer?
ii).Whether the said improper acceptance of
nomination materially affected the result of the
election?
75. It is the foremost contention of the petitioners that the
authorities have not properly considered the objection and
improperly accepted her nomination by passing order, dated
26.03.2019. As discussed supra, the petitioners neither placed
any material nor any document or evidence to say that the
respondent is not a member of notified Scheduled Tribe,
thereby, the Election Returning Officer was not considered
their objection. Even, in view of the findings arrived in issue
No.3, it can be categorical held that the respondent belongs to
ST community and thereby, the Returning Officer rightly
accepted the nomination of the respondent and which does not
materially affect the result of the election. Thus, these issues
are answered accordingly.
76. ISSUE No.6: To what relief?
In view of the findings in Issue Nos.1 to 3, the election
petition is devoid of merits to declare that the election of the
respondent as Member of 11-Kurupam (ST) Legislative
Assembly Constituency, Vijayanagaram District, Andhra
Pradesh held on 11.04.2019 be null and void, and even, as
discussed from the very beginning of the appreciation of the
issues in the matter, the term of Andhra Pradesh Legislative
Assembly elected in 2019 itself has expired, and a fresh
election was being held and a new Legislative Assembly was
elected in 2024, the election petition has to fail as
infructuous. Viewing from any angle, the present election
petition is liable for dismissal.
77. In the result, the Election Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 15.10.2024
Krs
APPENDIX OF EVIDENE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioners: For Respondent:
P.W.1: Nimmaka Jayaraju R.W.1: Pamula Puspa Sreevani
P.W.2: Sajjan Singh R.Chowhan R.W.2: Prasanna Venkatesh
P.W.3: P.Venkata Swamy Naidu Venkataraman
R.W.3: Mallavarapu Surya Teja
R.W.4: Venkateswara Rao
R.W.5: P.Venkata Ramarao
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Petitioners:
Ex.A.1: Is the Certified Copy of a Sale Deed bearing No.573 of
1956, dated 29.02.1956, issued by the Sub-Registrar,
Palakonda.
Ex.A.2: Is the copy of the Order in R.C.No.191/2019/5a(Ele),
dated 26.03.2019, passed by the Returning Officer.
Ex.A.3: Is the copy of the detailed result of the election issued by
the Returning Officer, dated 23.05.2019.
Ex.A.4: Is the copy of Community Nativity and Date of Birth
Certificate of the respondent (The same is marked
subject to objection on admissibility as it is issued
under the R.T.I Act and is not a certified copy).
Ex.A.5: Is the document produced by P.W.2 and at page No.5, the
caste 'Konda' is mentioned the Glossary of Caste Name
in Srikakulam District.
Ex.A.6:Is the attested copy of proceedings in R.C.No.A5/07/2014,
dated 28.05.2014.
Ex.A.7: Is the extract of the Admissions and Withdrawals Register
of M.P.P. Elementary School, T.D.Parapuram,
Palakonda Mandal of Parvathipuram Manyam District.
Ex.A.8: Is the certified copy of Register of Admissions and
Withdrawals entry at Serial No.30 name mentioned as
Mohan Das Gandhi and at column No.12 caste
Mentioned as 'Konda'.
Ex.A.9: Is the Register of Admissions and Withdrawals and the
relevant entry is at serial No.72 name Pamula
Vivekananda and at caste column No.12, it is
mentioned as 'Konda'.
Ex.A.10: Is the Register of Admissions and Withdrawals and the
relevant entry is at serial No.98 name Pamula Anasuya
and at caste column No.12, it is mentioned as 'Konda'.
On behalf of the Respondent:
Ex.B.1: Is the attested copy of Transfer Certificate of R.W.1
(marked subject to objection)
Ex.B.2: Is the copy of G.O.Ms.No.6, Social Welfare (TW.CV-2)
Department, dated 02.02.2022.
Ex.B.3: Is the attested copy of Caste Certificate (marked subject
to objection)
Ex.B.4: Is the attested copy of Admissions Register (marked
subject to objection)
Ex.B.5: Is the attested copy of Transfer Certificate of Pamula
Sujana (marked subject to objection)
Ex.B.6: Is the attested copy of Community, Nativity and Birth
Certificate of Pamula Venkata Rama Tulasi (marked
subject to objection)
Ex.B.7: Is the attested copy of Transfer Certificate of Pamula
Venkata Rama Tulasi (marked subject to objection)
Ex.B.8: Is the attested copy of Community, Nativity and Birth
Certificate of Pamula Sujana (marked subject to
objection)
Ex.B.9: Is the attested copy of Transfer Copy of Pamula Prudvi
Raj (marked subject to objection)
Ex.B.10: Is the attested copy of Community, Nativity and Birth
Certificate of Pamula Prudvi Raj (marked subject to
objection)
Ex.B.11: Is the Photostat copy of caste certificate of R.W.1 issued
in the year 2001.
Documents marked through the Witnesses summoned by the
Court:
Ex.X.1: Is the certified copy of proceedings in R.C.No.C2/3-
1739206/2019, dated 10.05.2021 (compared the same
with original)
Ex.X.2: Is the certified copy of proceedings in
R.C.No.T9/357/ITDA, dated 30.04.2021 (compared the
same with original)
Ex.X.3: Is the original Transfer Certificate bearing No.787024
relating to Pamula Narayana Murthy.
Ex.X.4: Is the relevant page in second volume of original Service
Register of Pamula Narayana Murthy.
Ex.X.5: Is the entire volume No.1 of Service Register of Pamula
Narayana Murthy.
Ex.X.6: Is the stabled document in volume No.1 of Service
Register of Pamula Narayana Murthy, dated 04.05.2011
i.e., proceedings of Deputy Director (T.W.), K.R.Puram,
West Godavari and it was issued by the then Deputy
Director by name Smt.P.Savithri with
R.C.No.A4/500/2011, dated 04.05.2011.
____________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 15.10.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
ELECTION PETITION NO.20 OF 2019
( ORDER )
DATE: 15.10.2024
Krs
