Case: Smt. Radha Bai Ananda Rao Vs. S. Suvarna Kumar and Another

Appellant Smt. Radha Bai Ananda Rao feel aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court Andhra Pradesh dated September 21, 1978, as her election to the sixth Lok Sabha from the Bhadrachalam (Scheduled Tribes) Parliamentary Constituency has been declared void. She was declared elected on March 21, 1977, but her election was challenged by K. Bapanna Dora, who was one of the contesting candidates at the election, on the ground that she was not a member of a schedules tribe and had wrongly made a declaration in her nomination paper, that she belonged to the Koya scheduled tribe notified by the Presidents order under Article 342(1) of the Constitution to be a scheduled tribe throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant denied the contention of the election petitioner and asserted that she belonged to that tribe. She stated that she had successfully contested the two earlier general elections of 1967 and 1971 also, as a candidate belonging to the koya scheduled tribe.      2. Four issues were framed by the trial Court on March 17, 1978. K. Bapanna Dora however made an application on April 3, 1978 under Section 109(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for leave to withdraw the election petition. That was allowed, and S. Suvarana Kumar was substituted as the election petitioner. The High Court proceeded with the trial of the election petition and ultimately recorded the finding that the appellant did not belong to the koya community, which was a scheduled tribe, that the acceptance of her nomination paper by the Returning Officer was illegal, and that her election was liable to be declared void. It accordingly made the impugned order and awarded costs to the election petitioner.      3. Although four issues were framed for the trial of the election petition, the trial centered round the main question whether the appellant belonged to the koya scheduled tribe mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The schedule to the order specifies that the following shall, inter alia, be a scheduled tribe throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh,Koya or Goud with itsRajah or Rasha Koyas, Lingadhari Koyas (ordinary), Kottu Koyas, Bhine koya and Rajkoya.      We are not concerned with any of thes mentioned in the order, and the short question for consideration is whether the finding of the High Court that the appellant did not belong to the koya tribe is correct.

Reasoning:
There is no reason to disbelieve the correctness of this entry also. The High Court has rejected the entries made after 1930 relating to the appellant and her relatives, under the impression that they were made on the advice of her relative Appa Rao who was headmaster of the school for 5 or 6 years. The High Court did not however take notice of that part of the statement of the appellant, which remained unrebutted, where she had stated categorically that Appa Rao was the headmaster of the school during2 and could not possibly have anything to do with the entries which were made before 1938 or after 1942. As it is, none of the entries on which we have thought it proper to place reliance for the purpose of examining the correctness of the High Court finding, relates to the period during which Appa Rao was the headmaster of the school and we have no doubt that there was no justification for the High Court to reject the evidentiary value of those documents merely because Appa Rao had once been the headmaster of the school12. It would thus appear that documents Ex. A 4(c), B 8, B 5 and B 7, which were recorded during the period June 2, 1924 to September 19, 1944 show that the elder brother of the appellant as well as her younger sister and brother were recorded as belonging to the koya scheduled tribe in the school registers. The appellant was a child when entries Exs. A4(c) and B 8 were made, and she was quite a young girl when entries Exs. B 5 and B 7 were made, and she could not possible have thought that there was any advantage in recording tribe of her brothers and sister as koya during that period, which was long before the issue of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 195013. It may be mentioned that the appellant has placed reliance on the Tehsildars certificate Ex. B 1 that she belonged to the koya scheduled tribe, and entry Ex. B 10 in the National Citizenship Register which was prepared in 1962 showing that she belonged to the koya scheduled tribe. It is not however necessary to refer to them as nothing could possibly turn on them when the other evidence on the record is sufficient to decide the question in controversy14. On a consideration of the entire evidence on the record we have, therefore, no doubt that the appellant belonged to the koya scheduled tribe. The contrary finding of the High Court is incorrect and is set aside.