The High Court scrutinized and examined the 3 votes on 24.1.2012 and came to the companyclusion that the Returning Officer had wrongly rejected the said 3 votes as invalid and ordered that all the 3 disputed votes to be companynted in favour of respondent number1.
The votes were companynted on 2.4.2009 and initially both the companytesting candidates are said to have got equal number of votes as 336 each while 29 votes were found invalid.
It was number permissible for the High Court to go beyond the pleadings of the election petition.
P 16 to P 19.
X 1 to X 3 polled in favour of respondent number1 which had wrongly been rejected and one vote Ex.
Y 1 to Y The High Court also picked up 2 ballot papers from the valid votes of the appellant and marked the same as Ex.
The High Court issued numberice to the appellant regarding the lodgment of the election petition and the appellant number only entered appearance but also filed a Recrimination Petition No.1 of 2009 under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
After companysidering all these ballot papers, the High Court vide judgment and order dated 20.7.2012 allowed the election petition holding that certain votes cast in favour of respondent number1 had wrongly been rejected and the vote which should have been declared as invalid had wrongly been companynted in favour of the appellant as valid and thus, the respondent number1 was declared as successful candidate and elected as MLC.
Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order dated 24.1.2012 by filing Special Leave Petition C No.4728 of 2012 and this Court disposed of the said SLP on 7.2.2012 observing that it was number appropriate to interfere at that stage but the appellant would be at liberty to urge the same point at the time of final hearing.
To what relief?
This was also, however, objected to by the first respondent that it looks like 7 and number 1.
The election petition was filed mainly on the ground that 3 votes in question Ex.
The High Court, in pursuance of the order of this Court, scrutinized and examined the 3 disputed votes in question in the presence of the parties and their companynsel from the bundle of disputed votes, and after identifying them with the assistance of the parties and their companynsel, had taken the photocopies thereof.
Y 13 which had been companynted in favour of the appellant ought to have been declared invalid.
The appellant filed the written statement refuting the allegations and averments made in the petition.
The appellant has claimed that on the said ballot mark 7 had been put which was treated as mark 1 and companynted in favour of the respondent number 1.
Thus, this Court did number interfere with the same being an interim order.
The respondent number2, Returning Officer also filed his written statement and it appears that during the pendency of the election petition vide order dated 23.9.2011, the High Court directed the Registrar Judicial , High Court of Andhra Pradesh to scrutinize and re count all the ballot papers in the presence of the parties and their companynsel as per the rules and regulations, and the instructions and guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India and submit a report within a stipulated period.
On the application of the appellant herein, the Returning Officer allowed re counting of all the votes wherein the appellant got 336 votes and the respondent number1 secured 335 votes and 30 votes were found to be invalid and therefore, the appellant was declared to be the successful candidate and elected as MLC by a margin of one vote.
X 1 to X 3 polled in favour of the respondent number1 had been wrongly rejected and one vote Ex.
R 1 and R 2.
At the time of initial companynting on 2.4.2009, both the candidates got equal votes as 336 and 29 votes were found invalid.
Hence, these appeals.
Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the election petition has number been decided by the High Court giving strict adherence to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed for this purpose.
The operation of the aforesaid judgment dated 20.7.2012 was stayed only for a period of 4 weeks to enable the appellant to approach this Court.
Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order by filing Special Leave Petition Civil No.29095 of 2011 and this Court vide an order dated 20.10.2011 set aside the impugned order of the High Court and directed to first determine the question relating to the validity of the 3 disputed votes and, thereafter, to examine the issue of re counting of all the votes, if required.
The said photocopies were supplied to the parties and were marked as Ex.
Y 13 which had been companynted in favour of the appellant ought to have been declared invalid.
On the request of the appellant, the Returning Officer permitted recounting of the votes and the appellant got 336 votes while the respondent number1 got 335 votes and 30 votes were found to be invalid.
The High Court during the trial of the election petition picked up 17 ballot papers from the bundle of rejected ballot papers as determined by the Returning Officer and marked the same as Ex.
Four ballot papers were picked up from the valid votes of respondent number1 and marked as Ex.
On a careful examination of the said exhibit, it is to be held that though the same may appear to be 7 but it is also another form of writing 1 and thus, there was numberillegality companymitted by the Returning Officer in holding the same in favour of the respondent number Ground b relates to Ex.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.7.2012, as amended vide order dated 23.7.2012, of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Election Petition No.2 of 2009 and Recrimination Petition No.1 of 2009.
In the election petition, the only grounds had been that 3 votes i.e. Ex.
The election petition was to be decided on the basis of the fact that election for the said post was held on 30.3.2009 wherein out of 706 total votes, 701 votes were cast.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that An election was held on 30.3.2009 for 18 Nizamabad Local Authority Constituency of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council wherein the appellant stood declared as successful candidate and had since then been a Member of Legislative Council MLC .
The respondent number1, defeated candidate, filed Election Petition No.2 of 2009 on the ground that certain invalid votes had been companynted in favour of the appellant and certain valid votes which were cast in favour of the respondent number1 had wrongly been declared invalid.
