Dismissed

Banda Gopal Reddy v. Vasala Ramesh

Telangana HC29 Mar 2010CRP/4987/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order that declared the petitioner's election as upa-sarpanch void. The trial court found that statutory notices were not displayed or served as required by the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules. The High Court held the trial court's reliance on witness evidence regarding non-service was not perverse and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. No costs awarded.

Banda Gopal Reddy Vs Vasala Ramesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4987 OF 2009

¶6

Between :

¶7

Banda Gopal Reddy ...PETITIONER

¶8

A N D

¶9

Vasala Ramesh and others. …RESPONDENTS

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶11

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4987 OF 2009

¶12

O R D E R:

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 17.09.2009, in O.P.No. 04 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimangar, whereunder and whereby the election of the petitioner as upa-sarpanch of Kothapally village of Karimnagar District is declared as null and void and it is ordered that fresh election shall be conducted for the post of upasarpanch of the village, as per law.

¶14

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as follows:

¶15

Respondent No.1 herein is the 13^th ward elected member of Gram Panchayat, Kothapally Village of Karimanagar Mandal and the election was held on 06.08.2006 for the post of Sarpanch, ward members and upa-sarpanch. As per the rules prescribed for election of upa-sarpanch

¶16

under A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short “ the Act”) a special meeting shall be convened for electing upa-sarpanch on the same day of declaration of results of members and sarpanch of a village after giving notice to all the members. But the Election Officer of Kothapally Village failed to display the election notice on the Gram panchayat notice board and also failed to issue the notices as prescribed in Form No.1 to the individual ward members and thereby violated Rule 3 (1) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Conduct of Election of Upa-sarpanch Rules, 2006 (for short “ the Rules”).

¶17

3. The petitioner herein filed counter stating that no rule prescribed under the Act is violated in conducting the elections of the village and in electing petitioner as upa-sarpanch of the village and also there was no conspiracy between him and the 6^th respondent herein.

¶18

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial.

¶19

1. Whether the election of respondent No.6 to the post of upasarpanch of Kothapally village is liable to be declared as null and void ?

¶20

2. To what relief ?

¶21

5. To substantiate the case PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P4 were got marked. On behalf of the 1^st respondent herein RWs.1 to 5 were examined and Ex.R1 was marked on behalf of the petitioner herein.

¶22

6. The trial court after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence placed by the respondent Nos.2 to 6 and the petitioner herein to show that the notice has been duly affixed on the notice board of the Grama panchayt office; and that there is no evidence to show that notice in Form No.1 has been served to every elected ward member before the election to the upa-sarpanch and accordingly allowed O.P.No.4 of 2006. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed.

¶23

7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the trial court is correct and proper.

¶24

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notice as required under the Rules was affixed on the notice board and that notice in Form No-1 has been served on all the members; that in view of the fact that all the members have attended the election of sarpanch, thereby within a gap of half an hour the election of upa-sarpanch was held, and that it is clear from the facts that notices have been acknowledged by all the members and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶25

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that absolutely no evidence is placed by the petitioner to show that notice has been affixed on the notice board of Gram panchayat specifying the date and time of the election of Upa-sarpanch and also no acknowledgment was obtained from each individual to show about their presence and therefore, it is clearly a violation of Section 14 (10) of the Act and therefore, he prays to dismiss the revision petition.

¶26

10. The powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised unless it is shown that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction or not exercised the powers conferred upon it or the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse or not based upon any evidence. A finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon any evidence available on record. The ground on which the election of petitioner was declared as void by the trial court is that no notices have been served on the elected ward members of the Gram panchayat for electing the Upasarpanch. It is not in dispute that the election of the Sarpach has to be conducted after conducting the election of upa-sarpanch. Therefore, there is a necessity of serving the notices to the elected members of the various wards of the village. One such mode is to display in the notice board of the Gram panchayat specifying the date and time of the election and also issuing notices as contemplated under law duly serving on the members. This provision contemplated under Section 14 (10) of the Act, which is as follows:

¶27

a) A special meeting for the election of upa-sarpanch shall be called on the same date on which the results of the ordinary election of gram panchayat have been published. The notice of the meeting for election of upa-sarpanch shall be given to the members so elected by affixture of the same on the notice board at the office of the gram panchayat immediately after such publication.

¶28

b) Rule 3(1) convening of special meeting, the election of the upa-sarpanch of the gram panchayat shall be held in the office of the gram panchayat on the same date on which the results of the ordinary election of the gram panchayat are published at a meeting of the members specially convened for the purpose notice for which shall be given in Form No.1.

¶29

11. PWs.1 to 3, who are the elected ward members, have categorically stated that they have not received any notice from the election officer, under Ex.A3 proceedings. Therefore, their evidence is very clear that they have not received any notices from the election officer. If really the notices have been served, the election officer must have obtained the signatures of all the ward members in token of receipt of the notices. Therefore, the initial burden standing upon the respondent No.1 herein has been discharged.

¶30

12. The case of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and petitioner herein is that notice has been affixed on the notice board indicating the names of all the elected ward members for the election of sarpanch, and that the notices as contemplated under Form No.1 has been duly served on all the elected ward members. Even RW-4 clearly admitted in his cross examination that he did not file any document to show about serving of notices under Rule (3) of the Rules on the elected ward members. He further admitted that, due to non-availability of eight ward members, notices were not served. Therefore, the admission of RW-4 would clearly go to show that the provisions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder have been clearly violated by the election officer. Therefore, the trial court after elaborate consideration of evidence on record rightly declared the election of the petitioner herein as null and void. There are

¶31

no infirmities in the order passed by the trial court, since the finding is based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Hence the revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶33

_______________ K.C.BHANU. J

¶34

MARCH 29, 2010. YVL Note: Issue CC within in three days. (B/o) YVL

Banda Gopal Reddy v. Vasala Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banda Gopal Reddy v. Vasala Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Solanki Vs Nawab Ghanji Jung Bahadur and 76 Others

Gunti Mandepalli Yellavva Vs Joginipally Anand Rao

Union of India, Vs Golekh Chandra Samal

Bojja Thirupathi Vs Gajula Shankaraiah

Smt. Kommoju Aruna Sri Vs Kommoji Srinivasa rao

Mohammad Saleem Vs Surisetty Samuel Satyanandam