Before the High Court the petitioner had taken various grounds but only one ground was urged before us by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the High Court may declare the election of the returned candidate as void and to declare the petitioner as having been duly elected from the aforesaid companystituency.
6 of 1990 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
2 than the petitioner.
2 who was number eligible, secured 9568 votes.
1 has been materially affected.
2 who was under 25 years of age and was number eligible to companytest.
The High Court numbericed that this is all the evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove that the election of respondent No.
1 while the petitioner had numbersuch disadvantage.
It was further pleaded that the result of the election in so far as it companycerned the returned candidate, has been materially affected by the number compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Representation of the People Act.,
2 were more than 22 times the difference between the number of votes secured by the respondent No.
The High Court on companysideration of evidence also took the view that respondent No.
He did number say how his votes would have been distributed between the petitioner and respondent No.
The petitioner and respondents 1 to 9 companytested for membership of Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 254 Karimnagar Assembly companystituency in the election which was held on 22nd November, 1989.
1 the returned candidate, and his nearest rival the petitioner.
1 succeeded over the petitioner, the election result of respondent No.
1 was only 427 and the votes spoiled by respondent No.
He then pleaded that respondent No.
One of the grounds urged before the High Court was that the Returning Officer companymitted illegality in accepting the numberination paper of respondent No.
It was submitted that in a multi cornered companytest the margins are unpredictable.
2 have secured their votes mainly from urban areas while the petitioner secured bulk of his votes from rural areas, since the election petitioner was number so popular in urban areas and, therefore, the respondent No.
It was then submitted that the difference in votes secured by the petitioner and respondent No.
1 has been materially affected.
1 who was a winning candidate secured 37248 voted whereas the petitioner secured 36821 votes and respondent No.
1 and respondent No.
It was further pleaded that it is number companyrect to say that by reason of respondent No.
2 polling more than 22 times the margin of votes by which the respondent No.
2 materially affected his chances in the election.
1 would have secured more number of wasted votes of respondent No.
P.W. 2, respondent No.
2 in the Election Petition, has stated that there were general expectation that respondent No.
1 was likely to win 1989 elections.
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 12th September, 1991 whereby Election Petition No.
