THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY + W.P.No. 20344 of 2008 % 20-04-2009 Between: Chavatapalli Annapurna …Petitioner And The District Election Officer/Authority & District Collector, East-Godavari, and others …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri B. Adinarayana Rao ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri A.M. Lakshmana Sarma < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1) (2003) 8 SCC 673 2) (2005) 12 SCC 121 3) (2004) 1 SCC 429 THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.20344 of 2008 ORDER: Elections to the Saripalle Gram Panchayat in Uppalaguptham Mandal, East-Godavari District were held in September, 2006. The petitioner and the 6th respondent filed nominations. The 7th respondent, who has proposed the candidature of the 6th respondent, filed a letter, for withdrawal. The Returning Officer accepted the same. The petitioner alone remained in the fray, and she was declared elected, as Sarpanch, unanimously. The 6th respondent filed O.P.No.1 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram (for short ‘the Tribunal’). She pleaded that her signature was forged on the withdrawal form, and without ensuring proper compliance with the relevant Rules, the Returning Officer has accepted her withdrawal, on 23-07-2006. The Tribunal accepted the contentions of the 6th respondent and allowed the O.P., through order dated 02-09-2008. It was held that the acceptance of the nomination of the 6th respondent is contrary to Rule 10 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections of Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Members of Mandal Parishad and Members of Zilla Parishad) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules’). Consequential direction was issued to the Election Authority, i.e. the District Collector, to conduct elections. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the only ground urged by the 6th respondent was that, her signature was forged on the withdrawal form, but the Tribunal allowed the O.P., on the ground that the acceptance of withdrawal was contrary to Rule 10 of the Rules. He contends that, when such a ground was not pleaded in the election petition, it was not open to the Tribunal to take the same into account. According to the learned counsel, the parties to the election petition cannot be permitted to deviate from the pleadings, and the popular mandate cannot be set at naught, on the basis of assumptions. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar[1]; Ram Bhual v. Ambika Singh[2], and Ajay Kumar Poeia v. Shyam[3]. Sri M. Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client categorically pleaded in the election petition that she did not present the letter of withdrawal, personally, and thereby, the violation of Rule 10 of the Rules is alleged. He contends that the pleadings are required to be precise, and further particulars are to be supplemented through evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the verification of the compliance with Rule 10 of the Rules, involves a pure question of law, and there need not be any specific plea, in this regard; assuming that there is any lacuna in the pleadings. The office of Sarpanch of Saripalle Gram Panchayat was reserved in favour of Woman. Only two nominations, namely, that of the petitioner, and the 6th respondent were filed. The Returning Officer accepted the letter of withdrawal of nomination, presented by the proposer of the 6th respondent, viz., the 7th respondent. As a result, the petitioner came to be elected, unanimously. The grievance of the 6th respondent, canvassed in the O.P., was only about the legality or otherwise of the acceptance of her nomination. On her behalf, PWs 1 to 5 were examined, and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner, RWs 1 to 4 were examined, and no documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the 6th respondent, and allowed the O.P. Two contentions are advanced on behalf of the petitioner, viz., a) the 6th respondent did not raise any specific plea, referable to Rule 10 of the Rules, and b) the acceptance of withdrawal of nomination does not constitute the basis to set aside the election. The Government framed the Rules, in exercise of power under Section 268 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. A detailed procedure is prescribed for conduct of elections, commencing from publication of notification for election, to the declaration of results. It is not in dispute that the 6th respondent also filed her nomination and her candidature was proposed by the 7th respondent. In the scrutiny, the nomination was found to be in order. However, on a letter submitted by the 7th respondent, the nomination of the 6th respondent was withdrawn. Rule 10 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for withdrawal of nominations. It reads as under: “Rule-10: Withdrawal of Candidature: (1) Any candidate may withdraw his candidature, by notice in writing in Form 6, signed by him and personally delivered by him, to the Election Officer at any time after the presentation of his nomination paper and not later than 3-O’ clock in the afternoon of the third day succeeding that appointed for scrutiny of the nomination, whether or not it is public holiday. The Election Officer shall give a receipt for same in Form 6 on being satisfied as to the genuineness of the notice of withdrawal and the identity of the Candidate. (2) The Election Officer on receiving a notice of withdrawal under sub-rule (1) shall, as soon as may be, cause a notice of the withdrawal to be published in Form 7. (3) A candidate, who has withdrawn his candidature under sub-rule (1) shall not be allowed to cancel the withdrawal or to be re-nominated as a candidate for the same election”. It is relevant to note that before the Rule was amended through G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 11-12-2000, it was not mandatory that a letter of withdrawal must be presented by the candidate, in person. The amended Rule makes it compulsory that the withdrawal be presented in Form-IV, by candidate, in person, with his signature. The plea raised by the 6th respondent, in her election petition, reads as under: “Para-10: It is submitted since the petitioner did not submit the withdrawal form and the signature thereon does not belong to her and the 5th respondent accepting it, declared the 6th respondent elected as Sarpanch unanimously the petitioner is entitled to seek declaration that the acceptance of the withdrawal of her nomination by the 5th respondent is illegal, unlawful and unauthorized and null and void since the signature on the withdrawal form is forged and request to conduct election for the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Saripalli village in between the petitioner and the 6th respondent as candidates for the office of the Sarpanch. The conduct of the Officials in not taking any action after the petitioner submitted petitions dated 23-07-2006 and 24-07- 2007 complaining mischief and forgery of her signature on the withdrawal form till the direction of the High Court is itself sufficient to show that the withdrawal form was not signed by the petitioner and that is why no enquiry was conducted on the petitions dated 23-07-2006 and 24-07-2006 of the petitioner with fear that the truth will come out and thereby the declaration of the 6th respondent elected unanimously becomes nullity”. From this it is clear that the 6th respondent pleaded two ingredients, viz., a) that she did not submit the withdrawal form, and b) that the signature in the form of withdrawal does not belong to her. It may be true that the 6th respondent did not mention any provision of law, in support of the grounds, urged by her. In this context, it is necessary to take note of Order 6 Rule 1 C.P.C., which mandates that the pleadings are required to be precise. Rule 3(ii) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Election Tribunal Rules’) directs that “the petition shall contain a statement in concise form…” It is only particulars of corrupt practices, that are required to be stated in detail. The factual basis is to be supplemented during the course of evidence, and the legal aspects are to be dealt with at the stage of arguments. It is not necessary to mention the provisions of law, which get attracted to the facts pleaded by the parties in their pleadings. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner lay emphasis upon the importance of pleadings in the election petitions. I n Sushil Kumar’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that the pleadings in an election petition must be construed strictly. On facts of that case, it was found that pleadings did not accord with Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 of C.P.C. A serious defect was pointed out in the written statement. In Ram Bhual’s case (2 supra), it was found that the pleadings were silent, as to the point urged by the election petitioner, and it was held to be a case of no pleadings, at all. In Ajay Kumar’s case (3 supra), the scrutiny of the pleadings emerged that the dispute, as to the social status of the elected candidate; was not raised at all. Such is not the case here. The gist of the precedents referred to above is that the opposite party cannot be taken by surprise, and the Tribunal must confine its adjudication, with reference to the pleadings, before it. Once it has emerged that the 6th respondent has laid necessary factual foundation, which suggests violation of Rule 10 of the Rules, it cannot be said that her pleadings are imperfect or incomplete in any manner. The Returning Officer, who rejected the nomination of the 6th respondent, deposed as RW-2. He stated that the withdrawal form was submitted by the proposer of the 6th respondent, viz., 7th respondent, and that he accepted the same. He relied upon Chapter VI of the Hand Book for Returning Officers, according to which, it is not necessary that the withdrawal notice be delivered by the candidate, in person. Obviously, the hand book was prepared before Rule 10 of the Rules was amended, and it was not updated thereafter. Once it has emerged that the 6th respondent did not submit the notice, to withdraw her nomination, in person, a clear violation of Rule 10 of the Rules stands established, and the acceptance of withdrawal becomes untenable. The question, as to whether the signature of the 6th respondent was forged on the withdrawal form; virtually becomes secondary. The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the acceptance of withdrawal does not constitute the basis, to interfere with the election. The circumstances under which the election of a returned candidate can be set aside, are mentioned under Rule 12 of the Election Tribunal Rules. Improper acceptance or improper rejection of nominations are recognized as specific grounds, for setting aside the election of a returned candidate. It is true that no specific mention is made about improper acceptance of withdrawal. However, a perusal of clause (d) (iv), makes it clear that, if the result of an election is materially effected, on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, and the Rules made thereunder, the Election Tribunal can grant necessary relief. In the instant case, Rule 10 of the Rules, framed under the Act, was clearly violated. But for the improper acceptance of the withdrawal of the nomination of the 6th respondent, the petitioner could not have been declared elected, unanimously. The Tribunal has examined the matter objectively, and from the correct perspective. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20-04-2009. Note: 1) L.R. copy to be marked 2) C.C. in one week.. (B/O) KO* [1] (2003) 8 SCC 673 [2] (2005) 12 SCC 121 [3] (2004) 1 SCC 429