IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 87 OF 2010 Between: Y.Krishnaveni ..... PETITIONER AND M.Saraswathi and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 87 OF 2010 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the 1st respondent in O.P.No.9 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Election Tribunal, Anantapur District. The main O.P. was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking a declaration that the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gaddam Nagepalli Village Gram Panchayat is arbitrary and illegal, Primarily on the ground that she suffered disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The O.P. was contested by the revision petitioner and during enquiry PW Nos.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the election petitioner. At that stage the Revision Petitioner filed I.A.No.7 of 2009 with a prayer to send for all the ballot papers along with all the connected material with regard to the election process. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 19.10.2009, and aggrieved by the same this Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under Revision. As could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.7 of 2009 no specific reason could be assigned by the petitioner to send for the record in the custody of the Election Officer, except stating that the said documents were necessary to prove her contentions. The Court below having considered the petitioner’s request, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, concluded that the direction as sought for cannot be granted without completing the evidence. The said discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever and therefore, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 20.01.2010 Ivd