THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.780 of 2008 % 22-01-2008 #Rudraraju Siva Rama Raju ….PETITIONER Vs. $The Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, West Godavari District and three others. ….. RESPONDENTS !Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.M.Subhan. Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: -Nil- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.780 of 2008 DATED 22.1.2008 Between: Rudraraju Siva Rama Raju. ….PETITIONER Versus The Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, W.G.District and three others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.780 of 2008 ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation. 2. The learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that inasmuch as there is contravention of Rule 30 of the Rules specified in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is perfectly maintainable. 3. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation had taken this Court through the Rules 148 and 149 of A.P. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2003, hereinafter in short referred to as the Rules for the purpose of convenience, and would maintain that in the light of the same, any violation of the Rule also can be complained of only by way of an Election Petition and hence the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 4. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in declaring the 4th respondent as elected for the post of President of Poduru Water Users Association as high- handed and arbitration action, without jurisdiction, contrary to Rule 30 of A.P. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (Andhra Pradesh Act 11 of 1997) and pass such other suitable orders. 5. It is stated that the petitioner is a farmer belonging to Poduru village in West Godavari District. It is also stated that on 9.1.2008 the election for President and Vice President posts of Poduru Water Users Association was conducted. For President’s post the petitioner and another by name Korupalli Pulla Rao (R4) contested the election, out of 12 members of electoral body, six members voted in favour of the petitioner and the other six members to K.Pulla Rao and thereby due to equality of votes, the process of was stopped for some time. As the same was stalemate, the petitioner and other members lect the premises and after that the Election Officer declared the 4th respondent as elected by Head and toss system, which is contrary to the Rules prescribed under Rule 30 of A.P. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (Andhra Pradesh Act 11 of 1997) and as such liable to be set aside. It is also stated that as per Rule 30 of the Rules if stalemate arises due to equality of votes, the Election Officer shall forthwith decide among those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot falls had received the additional vote. The note under Rule 30 clearly lays the procedure for drawing lots. 30. Equality of votes If, after the counting of the votes is completed, an equality of votes is found to exist among any of the candidates and the addition of one vote will lead to any of those candidates being declared elected, the Election Officer shall forthwith decide among those candidates by lot, and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot falls had received the additional vote. It is also further stated that the Presiding Election Officer without obtaining the permission of the petitioner and without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules in spite of the objections made by the petitioner and other members and protest, laid Head and Toss and declared Kouripalli Pulla Rao (R4) was elected for the post of President of Poduru Water Users Association. The petitioner also gave objection in writing to the Presiding Officer and also gave complaint to the Poduru Mandal Tahsildar on the same day of election, which was not even considered by the E.P. It is also averred that the action of the 3rd respondent in declaring the 4th respondent as elected though he got only 6 votes is unjust and nothing but showing favour to the unofficial respondent without following the Rules prescribed under the Act and as such the election of the 4th respondent is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice as the same is contrary to Rule 30 of A.P. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (Andhra Pradesh Act 11 of 1997). Further it is stated that the petitioner requested respondents 1 to 3 vide representation dated 12.1.2008 to take immediate action against the Presiding Officer who conducted the election illegally without following procedure and sought for stay of the result and to direct the concerned authorities to follow the procedure afresh by laying lots and declare the candidate elected and to do justice. The respondents 1 to 3 failed to take action against the E.O. and they are proceeding further to take oath of the 4th respondent which is unjust and arbitrary and nothing but showing favour to the 4th respondent. It is also averred that in spite of the objections made by the petitioner being contested candidate and without following the due process of law declaring the 4th respondent as elected though he got only 6 votes is unjust and arbitrary. Till date the 4th respondent had not taken charge as the 1st respondent had not given the Certificate and if the 4th respondent is permitted to perform as President of the Water Users Association, though he failed to get majority, he will definitely ruin the members and by using horse trading method he will harass the members. Hence, it is just and necessary in the interest of justice this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein not to permit the 4th respondent to perform as President of Poduru Water Users Association, or else the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. 6. Rule 148 dealing with Limitation for presentation of election petition, reads as hereunder: “Save as otherwise provided, no election held under the Act, whether of a member of Territorial Constituency or President of Vice-President of a Water Users Association; President or Vice-President of Distributory Committee, or Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Project Committee shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these Rules to the Election Tribunal as defined in Rule 149 by any candidate or voter against the candidate who has been declared to have been duly elected (hereinafter called the returned candidate or if there are two or more returned candidates against all or any such candidates)”. Rule 149 of the Rules dealing with the Election Tribunal reads: (1) For a Water Users Association:- The District Munsif, if there is more than one District Munsif, the Principal District Munsif, having territorial Jurisdiction over the place in which the office of the Water Users Association is located, in respect of the election of members of the Territorial Constituencies and President and Vice-President of the Water Users Association. (2) For a Distributory Committee:- The Subordinate Judge or if there is more than one Subordinate Judge, the Principal Subordinate Judge, having territorial Jurisdiction over the place in which the office of the Distributory Committee is located in respect of the election disputes and matters pertaining to the election of President and Vice- President of the Distributory Committee. (3) For a Project Committee:- The Principal District Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the office of the Project Committee is located, in respect of the election disputes and matters pertaining to the election of Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Project Committee”. 7. Rules 148 and 149 fall under Chapter X– settlement of election disputes. 8. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the merits and demerits of the matter in the light of the Rules 148 and 149 of the Rules specified above. In the light of the clear language employed in Rule 149 specified above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner is having an effective remedy by way of Election Petition. Hence, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Election Tribunal and in the event of the petitioner approaching the Election Tribunal, let the Election Tribunal dispose of the matter at the earliest point of time. 9. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------- 22.1.2008 SSR LR COPY TO BE MARKED.