In view of the result of the recount and scrutiny of the ballot papers the High Court by its order dt.
6 for recount and scrutiny of ballot papers of all the candidates but later on, he illegally modified his order and directed for the recount of ballot papers only without opening the bundles of the ballot papers of companynting the same.
April 23, 1986 directed recount and scrutiny of all the ballot papers polled by the candidates at all the polling stations including the rejected ballot pappies and postal ballot papers.
6 was held to have polled 38260 votes.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, learned Counsel for respondent No.
6 as duly elected.
On the pleading of the parties a number of issues were framed but before the High Court the parties companyfined their case to recount of ballot papers.
The High Court by its order dt.
While giving directions for the recount and scrutiny of the ballot papers learned single judge of the High Court issued the following directions I, therefore, companysider it just and necessary to direct recount of all the ballot papers polled by all the candidates at all the polling stations as also the rejected ballot papers and the postal ballot papers after rescrutiny of each of the ballot papers.
Sept. 30, 1986 set aside the appellants election and declared respondent No.
At the end of the recount number ordered, even if any extra votes are found polled in favour of the first respondent, the same shall number be added to him as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court In the four decisions referred to supra.
In pursuance to the directions of the High Court, scrutiny and recount of all the ballot papers was done and thereafter the appellant was declared to have polled 38204 votes while respondent No.
6 as duly elected.
One of the grievances raised by the election petitioner was that even though the Returning Officer had issued orders on an application made by the election agent of respondent No.
N. Singh, J. N. Gopal Reddy, the appellant was declared elected member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Gadwal Assembly Constituency, having obtained 38291 votes.
Bonala Krishnamurty, respondent No.
The election petitioner alleged that if a general recount and scrutiny of the ballot papers had been done as directed by the Returning Officer respondent No.
1 filed an Election Petition under Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 challenging the validity of the appellants election claiming relief for setting aside of the election of the returned candidate and also for declaring D.K. Samarasimha Reddy respondent No.
