Dharavatj Raju vs The Agency Divisional Officer and Election Tribunal and Another

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The petitioner, the second respondent and Anr. by name Pulasam Rambabu, contested for the Office of Sarpanch of Seetharampuram Gram Panchayat, in the elections held on 18.08.2006. The Office was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The petitioner was declared elected with a majority of 29 votes. The first respondent filed E.O.P. No. 13 of 2006 before the Election Tribunal-cum-Agency Divisional Officer at Kothagudam, u/s 233 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ''the Act''), read with the relevant rules framed under the Act. It was alleged that the petitioner is employed in the Singareni Collieries Limited with a different name and he filed nomination suppressing the said fact. According to the first respondent, the petitioner incurred disqualification u/s 18 of the Act. The petitioner filed a counter-affidavit opposing the application. Oral and documentary evidence was recorded and through order dated 15.11.2008, the Tribunal had set aside the election of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal did not record evidence, in detail, much less has it discussed the same. He submits that the petitioner has no doubt employed in Singareni Collieries, but the name given to him by his adoptive parents was mentioned in the order of appointment. Learned Counsel contends that under the Service Regulations of the Singareni Collieries, an employee is permitted to contest the elections and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for the Tribunal to set aside the election of the petitioner.

Sri M.Raja Malla Reddy, learned Counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner made a gross misrepresentation to the election authorities, while filing nomination with a different name. He contends that even if the Rules of the Singareni Collieries permit its employees to contest in the election, the bar u/s 18 of the Act, operates. The only ground on which the election of the petitioner was challenged is that he was not qualified to file the nomination, since he was employed in the Singareni Collieries. The prohibition contained u/s 18 of the Act operates, not only against the persons employed in State and Central Governments, but also the Companies owned by the State Governments. It is not in dispute that the Singareni Collieries is fully owned Company of the State of A.P.

In his counter-affidavit itself, the petitioner admitted that he is employed as Supportman, Category-IV with employee code No. 0466183 in 29 Dip, JK- 5 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Limited. His employment was, however, in the name of "Banoth Kanniyalal". Even while continuing in employment, the same individual filed nomination, for the office of Sarpanch in the name of ''Dharavath Raju''. Apart from other niceties involved in the matter, the conduct of the petitioner is highly deplorable. There cannot be any justification for the same individual to continue in employment with one name and to contest for electoral office in another name. The petitioner wanted to derive the benefits of reservation to the maximum extent possible. Strictly speaking, he was liable to be prosecuted. The plea of the petitioner that his adoptive parents gave the name of ''Kanniyalal'', offers hardly any justification.

If he came to be known as ''Kanniyalal'', he ought to have been known with the same name for all purposes.

This is a rare case where the petitioner deliberately and wantonly made a misrepresentation by filing nomination in different name. It is not known in how many other manners he has misrepresented the other public authorities. It is a matter of fact that various acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner need to be verified in detail and necessary action needs to be taken depending on the out come.

It is true that the Tribunal did not make any detailed reference to the evidence recorded by it. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in J. Pushpalatha Vs. Election Tribunal and Others, . The procedure to be followed by the Election Tribunals was dealt with in detail. In the instant case, the stand taken by the petitioner, in his counter-affidavit in the election petition, virtually left nothing to be supported by evidence. He categorically admitted that he was employed with Singareni Collieries, when he filed nomination and even now he is continuing in that employment.

Therefore, there was no necessity for any evidence to be adduced. The Tribunal took note of the unequivocal admission on the part of the petitioner and held him disqualified. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.