THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.15989 of 2006 Dated:03-08-2006 Between: K.Sudhakar Petitioner And The State Election Commission, rep. by its Commissioner,Secunderabad and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.15989 of 2006 ORDER: 1. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action on the petitioner’s representation dated 29-07-2006 and 30-07-2006 for recounting of votes as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional being violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the declaration declaring the 4th respondent as Sarpanch Lalgadi Gram Panchayat, Shameepet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass such other suitable orders. 2. The Returning Officer-respondent No.3 had field counter affidavit. The matter initially came for admission and Sri V. V.Prabhakar Rao took notice and requested time to get instructions on 01-08-2006 and the matter was adjourned to 02.08.2006 and the same is coming up as on today. It is stated by the petitioner that the election notification was issued by the 1st respondent for holding if elections for the post of Sarpanch, Lalgadi Malakpet Gram Panchayat and he had filed his nomination and participated in the elections and elections which were conducted on 29-06-2006. Several other details relating to the elections had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that during the counting one bundle of votes which are casted in my favour are counted in favour of 4th respondent, consequently he was declared elected with a majority of 24 votes. The bundle which was counted in favour of 4th respondent consists of 25 votes polled in favour of him. Several other allegations made that the 4th respondent is an influential person belonging to the ruling political party and he was able to influence the voters. Several other factual details had been also narrated at Para 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.3 it was stated that the State Election Commission issued notification on 09-07-2006 for conduct of elections to the Gram Panchayat throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant to the notification, the District Collectors of State issued notification on 15.7.2006 notifying the Gram Panchayats. The schedule mentioned in the notification issued by the State Election Commission is as hereunder: “Receiving of Nominations : From 15.7.2006 to 19.7.2006 upto 5.00 p.m. Scrutiny of Nominations : 20.7.2006 Filing of Appeals : 21.07.2006 Hearing & disposal of appeals : 22.7.2006 Withdrawal of Nominations and : 23.7.2006 Publication of validly contesting Candidates Date of Polling is of 3 Phases :1st Phase-29.7.2006 2nd phase-2.8.2006 3rd phase-6.8.2006” 4 . It is also stated that pursuant to the above notification, the District Collector cum Election Authority, Ranga Reddy District appointed him as Election Officer for Lalgadi Malakpet Gram Panchayat, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and he had acted as Election Officer both for Stage-I and Stage II. After receipt of nominations in so far as Lalgadi Malakpet Gram Panchayat, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, there were three candidates remaining in the contesting candidates list for the post of Sarpanch. It is stated that the elections were conducted to the Gram Panchayat on 29.07.2006 , the time of polling was fixed 7.00 p.m. and 1.00 p.m. Counting is fixed as 2.00 p.m onwards and the results would be declared soon after completion of the counting. In respect of Ward Members, the particulars and details need not be mentioned and the present dispute is only with regard to the post of Sarpanch. It is stated that on 29-07-2006 to the post of Sarpanch, the total votes polled are 2499 as per the Form No.26. After counting of the votes, he prepared Form No.26, wherein one Kanareddy Sudhakar Reddy (writ petitioner) got 1201 votes, one Cheedu Srinivas Reddy got 1225 votes and Nemuri Srinivas Goud got 21 votes and the rejected votes are 52, total votes polled are 2499 as stated earlier. Several other details also were mentioned and it is stated that after 3rd respondent announced the above mentioned details of votes, the writ petitioner with his followers came to him and raised objections that one bundle contains 25 votes belongs to the writ petitioner and the same votes were counted in favour of the opposite party. Pursuant to their request, the third respondent verified all the bundles in the presence of the writ petitioner and the unofficial respondent. It is stated that even after rechecking of the bundles, the votes polled against each candidate was in tact and there was no change. At that point of time, the writ petitioner had not raised any further objections and did not give any application in writing requesting recounting of the votes. Further several factual details had been narrated in Para 6 of the counter affidavit. The third respondent justifies the stand which is being taken by him. Before this court, no doubt some material is placed to show that the stand taken by the third respondent is not the correct stand and despite making a request within time as per the Rules, deliberately the third respondent had avoided taking up of the recounting which is bound to do in accordance with law or in accordance with rules. The same is hereby recorded. 5. It is needless to say that these are all factual details. Specific allegations are made as against the respondents in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the Returning Officer-respondent No.3 had substantially denied those allegations. No doubt some material placed before this court to show that the stand taken by the 3rd respondent cannot be sustainable stand at all. This court as a writ court cannot go into all these factual details at this stage. At the best, what is being complained is of the violation or contravention of the rules in not permitting or ordering recounting though such request was made in accordance with statutory rules. It is needless to say that the contravention of the rules can be definitely a ground of attack in election petition. In view of the same, the writ petitioner is given liberty to raise all these grounds inclusive of the other grounds which may be available to him in proper election petition before the election tribunal if the petitioner is so advised. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ​_______________ 03-08-2006 Stp