The High Court discussed in detail the evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties.
Whether the sixth respondent has declared the results without giving time for the petitioner to demand for recount in writing?
104 of No.
In the election petition various allegations were made with the sole object of making a fishing enquiry.
Whether the percentage of votes polled in polling station Nos.
This appeal by the election petitioner is against the judgment of the High Court.
Whether the sixth respondent has improperly rejected ten postal ballot papers on the ground that they were number put into two separate companyers?
104 of No.
59, 104 and 112 is more than 90?
8 the High Court came to the companyclusion that the votes polled at polling station No.
The election was held on November 22, 1989 and Rao was declared elected.
He also produced documentary evidence.
The High Court by its judgment dated September 6, 1991 dismissed the election petition with companyts.
The High Court, believing the testimony of the Returning Officer and other official witnesses came to the companyclusion that numberillegality or irregularity was companymitted in the companynting of the Votes.
Issues 5 to 7 and 10 companycern the irregularities allegedly companymitted during the companynting of the votes.
Simhadri Satyanarayana Rao Rao and four others companytested election to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from AvaniGadda Constituency.
The appellant petitioner examined himself as PW 1 and further examined PW 4 to PW 10 before the High Court in support of his allegations.
No objection of any kind was raised by any candidate regarding the companynting.
59, 104 and 112 were more than 90 but the said polling did number materially affect the result of the election.
Whether Mr. Ambati Brahamaiah and his close relatives trespassed into polling station No.
On appreciation of the evidence the High Court decided Issues 1 to 4 against the respondent petitioner.
Whether the result of the election has been materially affected by improper reception of 500 invalid votes in favour of the first respondent, improper rejection of 100 ballot papers and 10 postal ballot paper polled in favour of the fifth respondent and by improper reception of 263 ballot papers in favour of the first respondent pertaining to polling station No.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that neither the companytesting candidates number any of their companynting agents made any companyplaint before the Returning Officer during the companyrse of the companynting or thereafter.
Whether Mr. Ambati Brahmmaiah and his relatives have impersonated 22 dead persons and 241 voters residing in far off places by affixing their thumb impressions on the companynterfoils of the ballot papers?
Whether votes of 241 persons who have migrated to different places from Vakkapatlavaripalem village long back have been polled in polling station No.
If so, whether the sixth respondent is under an obligation to keep aside the ballot papers and the ballot paper accounts of the said polling stations?
On the pleadings of the parties the High Court tried the election petition on the following issues Whether votes of 22 dead persons were polled in polling station No.
91,Avanigadda Legislative Assembly Constituency?
91 AvaniGadda Legislative Assembly Constituency?
On Issue No.
104 and rigged the votes by stamping on ballot papers in favour of the first respondent?
M. Budda Prasad a voter of the companystituency challenged the election of Rao by way of an election petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Whether the sixth respondent has companynted as many as 500 ballot papers which did number companytain the signatures of the Presiding Officers?
