Appeal against setting aside order disqualifying elected Sarpanch. High Court dismissed appeal on technical ground as prior order was set aside in another appeal, binding lower court.
Writ appeal allowed; matter remanded to Election Tribunal for disposal afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 7 6 OF 2009 AGAINST WRIT PETITION No. 2 4 2 6 7 OF 2008
Between:
Nalla Satyanarayana, s/o. Surapunaidu, Aged about 37 years, r/o. Kannampeta village, Kannampeta Gram Panchayath Makkuva Mandal, Vizianagaram district. … AppellantRespondent No.2
VERSUS
G.Appala Naidu, s/o. Late Sivuni Naidu, Aged about 56 years, Panchayat Secretary (Chief Executive Officer), Kannampeta Gram Panchayat, Kannampeta village, Makkuva Mandal, Vizianagaram district. … Respondent-Writ Petitioner and 2-Ors. ….RespondentsRespondents 1 & 3 (R3 not necessary party)
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Taddi Nageswar Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi Sri M. Rama Rao
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 7 6 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari).
This writ appeal is filed by the second respondent in WP.No.24267 of 2008 aggrieved by the common order dated 31.12.2008 made in W.P.Nos.23854 and 24267 of 2008 allowing the said writ petitions holding that the petitioner in W.P. No. 23854 of 2008 did not incur disqualification for the office of Sarpanch under Sec. 19(3) of the A.P. Panchayath Raj Act, 1994, by giving birth to twins after the first issue.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that elections to the
Gram Panchayat of Kannampet, Vizianagaram District were held on 29.07.2006. The third respondent herein, who is the petitioner in
WP.No.23854 of 2008 and the wife of the appellant herein-1st respondent therein, by name, Bharathi, filed nominations for the office
of Sarpanch. The said Bharathi raised an objection for the nomination of the third respondent-petitioner, alleging that the third respondentpetitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, (for brevity ‘the Act’), inasmuch as she had three living children, out of whom, two were born after 31-05-1995, which was overruled by the Returning Officer and accepted her nomination. The third respondent-petitioner was declared elected. Subsequent to her election, the appellant herein, who is the second respondent therein submitted a representation dated 31-08-2006 to the first respondent therein, who is the third respondent in WP No. 23854 of 2008 stating that the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Act, and requested him to take necessary steps and also filed Election O.P. No.689 of 2007 before the District Judge-cum-Authority under A.P. Panchayat Raj Act under Section 22 of the Act, with a prayer to disqualify the petitioner. On coming to know of the same the petitioner sought the relief to declare that she did not incur any disqualification in E.O.P.No.217 of 2008 before the District Judge-cum-Authority under A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, who is
the fourth respondent in WP.No.23854 of 2008. The Election Tribunal
after clubbing both the O.Ps. by a common judgment dated
03-10-2008, held that the third respondent herein, who is the petitioner in WP.No.23854 of 2008 incurred disqualification under Section 19(3) of the Act and is not entitled to continue as Sarpanch.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent herein filed W.P.
No.24267 of 2008 against the common judgment rendered by District
Judge, Vizianagaram.
4. The learned Single Judge, on extensive consideration of
the submissions made by both the counsel, allowed the writ petition, as stated supra.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the second respondent in the
WP.No.24267 of 2008 preferred the present writ Appeal.
6. Though several grounds are sought to be urged, we are
not inclined to advert to the same as we propose to allow the writ appeal not on merits but on the ground that the common order dated 3.10.2008 made in E.O.P. Nos. 689 of 2007 and 217 of 2008 was set
aside in W.A. No. 75 of 2009 and the matter was remanded back to
the Election Tribunal, to consider the effect of pendency of I.A. filed by the returned candidate - Writ Petitioner in WP No. 23854 of 2008 to reopen the matter for adducing additional evidence. When once the common order in the above E.O.Ps. is set aside in W.A. No. 75 of 2009, this Writ Appeal deserves to be allowed, inasmuch as the writ petitioner in WP No.23854 of 2008 out of which W.A. No. 75 of 2009 has arisen, is the third respondent in the present Writ Appeal. Therefore, the finding in W.A. No. 75 of 2009 equally binds the appellant and the respondents in the present appeal.
7. Therefore, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions raised on either side, we allow the writ appeal and remand the same to the Election Tribunal – District Judge, Vizianagaram, for disposal afresh, in terms of the finding recorded in W.A. No. 75 of 2009. In the circumstances there shall be no order as
to costs.
_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI
________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
18-06-2009.
I s L
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A. No. 75 of 2009Referred¶30
Nalla Satyanarayana
G.Appala Naidu
T. Meena Kumari
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
