IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4088 OF 2009 Between: Allu Krishnarao …Petitioner A n d The District Collector, Visakhapatnam-cum-Election Authority and three others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4088 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.05.2009 in Election O.P.No.12 of 2006, on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili, wherein the said petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 233 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1994, seeking re-counting of votes in respect of election for the post of Sarpanch of Chippada Gram Panchayat, held on 02.08.2006, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein contested the election held for the post of Sarpanch of Chippada Gram Panchayat on 02.08.2006. In the said election, the 4th respondent was declared elected by a margin of 21 votes by the 3rd respondent-Returning Officer. According to the petitioner, the total number of electorate is 1529 and out of same, 1460 votes were polled and that 47 votes became invalid and 696 votes were polled in favour of the petitioner and 717 votes were polled in favour of R-4, the returned candidate. The petitioner alleges that during the process of counting that took place on the same day at 02-00 P.M., the 3rd respondent-Returning Officer acted in collusion with the 4th respondent due to political pressure asserted by one Rajana Bhaskarrao, MPTC of Chippada segment and permitted the MPTC to participate in the counting and violated the instructions of the Election Commission. He further alleges that the petitioner and his agent opposed the same, but the 3rd respondent ignored the objections and mixed the invalid votes in favour of the 4th respondent. The petitioner protested and gave an application to the 3rd respondent to conduct re- counting, but the 3rd respondent did not receive the same and declared the 4th respondent as returned candidate with 21 votes majority. 4. The 3rd respondent filed a counter, which was adopted by respondents 1 and 2, and 4th respondent filed a separate counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contending that on the date of polling, nobody was allowed in the polling booth except the agents recruited by the polling staff for the ward members and results were announced peacefully and thereafter counting was taken up for the Sarpanch in three rounds in the presence of the contesting candidates, their agents and election agents and the invalid votes were kept aside after verification by the contesting candidates and after completion of counting and before declaration of results, the petitioner had not made any request to R-3 either orally or in writing seeking re-counting nor raised any objections regarding the election process and thereafter R-4 was declared as elected. 5. During enquiry, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and his agent was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked on his behalf. R-3 was examined as R.W.1 and R-4 was examined as R.W.2 and his agent was examined as R.W.3 and Ex.R-1 legal notice dated 14.08.2006 was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record and by a reasoned order, the Election Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner miserably failed to establish any prima facie case for re- counting of the votes. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 7. It is not disputed that the petition being one seeking re-counting of the votes, the burden of proof squarely lies on the petitioner to establish valid and sufficient grounds justifying such re-counting. Admittedly, P.W.1 and his agent P.W.2 were both present at the time of counting. Significantly, P.W.2 is closely related to P.W.1 as his cousin. The main allegation of the petitioner is that R.W.3 Returning Officer acting under pressure from R-4 MPTC by name Rajana Bhaskar Rao mixed 47 invalid votes with the valid votes polled in favour of R-4 and declared R-4 as elected. He further alleges that he raised a protest and submitted a complaint under Ex.P-1 to R-3, but R-3 refused to receive the same. R-3 categorically denied that petitioner gave any such complaint under Ex.P-1. Ex.P-1 is stated to be the office copy of the complaint. There is nothing on record to show that such a complaint under Ex.P-1 was, in fact, given to R-3 and that he refused to receive the same, when according to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent refused to receive the complaint-Ex.P-1, in the course of natural human conduct, he ought to have sent the complaint to R-3 or to the higher authorities by registered post immediately. He did not do so. He did not give any complaint to the authorities even on the next day. It was three days later on 05.08.2006 that the petitioner claims to have sent a telegram Ex.P-2 to the District Collector. Respondents 3 and 4 alleged that Ex.P-1 is subsequently created by the petitioner for the purpose of filing this petition. Be that as it may, the fact remains that Ex.P-1 is only a self-serving document and merits no consideration, in the absence of any evidence to show that any such complaint was, in fact, given to R-3. Ex.P-2 purports to have been sent to the District Collector and District Election Officer, Visakhapatnam on 05.08.2006. Curiously, the postal receipt under which it was sent bears the date of 04.08.2006, as seen from the impugned order. The said discrepancy in the dates is not explained and the same throws any amount of doubt over the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner that he made protest by way of a telegram. Even assuming for a moment that the petitioner, in fact, issued a telegram on 05.08.2006, the conduct of the petitioner in keeping quiet for three days after declaration of the result, does not inspire any confidence to believe his version that 47 invalid votes were counted in favour of the returned candidate R-4. The testimony of P.W.2, one of the election agents of petitioner, was rightly rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of close relationship with the petitioner and in the absence of any explanation for non-examination of the other election agent Rajana Gopinath, who was also said to have been engaged by the petitioner and who was stated to be the reliever of P.W.2. Except making a bald allegation that R-3, at the instance of one Rajana Bhaskar Rao, mixed up the valid and invalid votes and the valid votes polled in favour of the petitioner were counted in favour of the returned candidate and the invalid votes were also counted in favour of R-4, the petitioner has not furnished the particulars of such votes with the symbols of the contesting candidates or the number of the tables, counting spot or the particulars of the ballot papers. The allegation of the petitioner that the Returning Officer R-3 was hand in glove with Rajana Bhaskar Rao, MPTC member, and at his instance indulged in certain irregularities and declared R-4 as elected by a margin of 21 votes, remains vague and totally unsubstantiated. On proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and duly applying the legal principles laid down in the decisions referred to in the impugned order, the Tribunal has reached proper conclusion that the petitioner miserably failed to establish even a prima facie case for ordering any re-counting of the votes. The impugned order which does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity does not, therefore, call for any interference. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 02nd August, 2009 Lrkm.