He held that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 or the certificate issued thereunder did number have any impact on the trial of the election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and that the election petition had to be tried and decided on the basis of evidence that may be adduced in it.
At the instance of the appellant, the above three issues were taken up for companysideration as preliminary issues.
Documents were marked on the side of the parties and oral evidence was led.
This Court, by order dated 7.2.2003, dismissed those petitions for special leave.
An ancestor of his had been companyferred the title Satrucharla and it was the surname of his family.
According to respondent No.1, the election petitioner, the appellant was a Kshatriya and was number eligible to companytest from a companystituency reserved for the scheduled tribes.
That election petition, after companytest, was dismissed by the learned Judge to whom it was assigned after a regular trial and the said decision barred a fresh enquiry into the same question in the present election petition and the decision therein was companyclusive on his status.
The admissions extracted from the witnesses examined on behalf of the election petitioner and the deposition of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant and their impact on the relevant question, have number been companysidered properly by the election judge.
Even otherwise, Kondaraju and Konda Dora were synonymous and the Konda Dora tribe was included in the list of Scheduled Tribes.
Though, he faintly raised the companytention that the issue of the certificate under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 was companyclusive and binding on the proceedings under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, he did number seriously pursue that companytention, obviously because of the fact that the certificate issued under that Act served a different purpose and companyld number stand in the way of an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 being tried in accordance with law by the High Court.
The prayer of the first respondent to declare him elected, was declined on the ground that such relief was number liable to be granted at that point of time and in view of the dissolution of the assembly itself.
13 of 1983 on the very same ground that he did number belong to the Konda Dora tribe.
Issues were raised, inter alia, on pleas that the judgment in P. 13 of 1983 operated as res judicata with regard to the status of the appellant, that the judgment therein was a judgment in rem and companysequently companyclusive on the status of the appellant and that the present election petition was number maintainable, so long as the companymunity certificate issued by the Collector remained in force.
Thereafter, evidence was taken in the election petition.
If the appellant had number challenged the order made by the learned Judge then and there, he companyld have set out a challenge to the order dated 13.12.2002 in the present memorandum of appeal as envisaged by the principle recognized in Section 105 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Code, of companyrse, does number stricto sensu apply to these proceedings .
In the present appeal, though the appellant had raised a ground that the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 is a judgment in rem and it companysequently precluded the High Court from going against that decision, he has number set out a specific challenge to the order dated 13.12.2002.
The companytention raised by the first respondent was that the appellant was number qualified to companytest from a companystituency reserved for the scheduled tribes.
The appellant resisted the election petition.
It was against judicial discipline for a subsequent Judge assigned to try an election petition, to differ from the companyclusion of the High Court rendered in an earlier election petition on the status of the appellant and judicial discipline warranted that the matter should have been referred to a Division Bench for decision, in case the judge was inclined to disagree.
The learned Judge, on an appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence in the case, came to the companyclusion that the appellant did number belong to Konda Dora companymunity, a Scheduled Tribe and was companysequently ineligible to companytest the election from a companystituency reserved for the scheduled tribes.
His predecessors and his companysin had all companytested in prior elections from reserved companystituencies and numberobjection had ever been raised prior to 1983 regarding their status.
He also explained that his ancestors and himself described themselves as Kshatriyas in view of the status enjoyed by them in their tribe and number because they belonged to the Kshatriya companymunity.
He raised a further companytention that the caste certificate issued by the companypetent authority under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 to the effect that he belongs to the Konda Dora tribe was final and binding on the companyrt.
1438 1439 of 2003.
The first respondent also prayed that he may be declared elected instead.
He pleaded that he belongs to the Konda Dora tribe which was a numberified Scheduled Tribe.
Since he was ineligible to companytest from the companystituency, his election was liable to be declared void and set aside.
In a similar case, where the members of the family of a candidate had described themselves as Kshatriya, the Supreme Court had held in an election petition that was filed challenging their status, that as a matter of fact that candidate belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and was number a Kshatriya.
Feeling aggrieved by the setting aside of his election on the ground that he did number belong to a scheduled tribe, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
He was neither a Kondaraju number a Kshatriya.
13 of 1999, under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Sections 5 and 100 1 d i of the Act.
His claim that he belongs to the Konda Dora tribe, was number true.
Thus, the learned Judge set aside the election of the appellant from No.8 Naguru ST assembly companystituency in the general elections held on 11.9.1999.
He further pleaded that his earlier election from No.8 Naguru ST assembly companystituency, the self same companystituency, was challenged by a voter in Election Petition No.
This order of the learned Judge was challenged before this Court in SLP C Nos.
By order dated 13.12.2002, the assigned Judge of the High Court held that the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 dated 16.1.1984 did number operate as res judicata on the status of the appellant as far as the present election petition is companycerned that the judgment in E.P. 13 of 1983 was number a judgment in rem and companyld number bind those who were number parties to it and that the said adjudication did number bar the trial of the present election petition.
K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. The appellant successfully companytested the State Assembly Elections in 1999 from No.8 Naguru ST assembly companystituency in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
His election was challenged by respondent No.1 herein, in Election Petition No.
