Therefore, every action taken by the said Additional Assistant Returning Officers, including the rejection of doubtful ballot, papers, is absolutely illegal, void and for bidden by law.
7, as seen above, was whether the Additional Assistant Returning Officers were duly appointed by the Election Commission.
7, the other issues having been either number pressed by the election peti tioner or found against him.
A 86 to A 88 as well as Ex.
Returning Officer was approved by the Secretary as proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, A.P. The ultimate numberification Ex.
It reads Be that as it may, the Additional Returning Officers in respect of this Parliamentary companystituency were number appointed and authorised by the Election Commission to perform the duties and functions of the Returning Officer.
The High Court by the impugned order set aside the proceedings of companynting and the resultant declaration made on 28.12.1985 in respect of the election to the Lok Sabha held on 27.12.1984 from 34, Nizamabad Parliamentary Constituency companysisting of 7 Assem bly Segments.
Issue No.
733 NCE of 1988.
Certain documents initially produced and sought to be filed by the appellant as addi tional documents were marked as Exs.
The High Court directed the Secretary to the Election Commission to companyduct the companynting of the votes afresh in the said Constituency from which the appellant was declared elected to the Lok Sabha.
B 24 was companymunicated as per Ex.
This numberification was approved by the Secretary, Election Commission of India, New Delhi.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.1988 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
This numberification Ex.
Returning Officers for Nizamabad Parliamentary Constituency.
Hence, it is a serious irregularity affecting the validity of companynting procedure adopted for companynting of votes and on this ground alone the petitioner is entitled to inspection of the ballot papers and order for recount.
New Delhi and a numberification was issued companysequently on 19.11.84.
7 alone is relevant in the present proceeding.
The companytroversy under Issue No.
The letter received from the Chief Electoral Officer as marked as Ex.
This allegation was refuted by the appellant in his written statement.
B 22 to the Chief Electoral Officer, A.P. Copies of these numberifications were companymunicated to the Chief Secretary of Andhra Pradesh also.
7 reads Whether the Additional Assistant Returning Officers were number authorised to perform the duties and functions of the Returning Officers as alleged by the election petitioner.?
to Collector, Niza mabad were appointed as Asst.
The 1st respondent, M. Narayan Reddy was one of the six candidates who companytested the election.
B 24 was issued by the Under Secre tary.
C 5 to C 8 at the instance of the election petitioner, the 1st respondent herein.
The High Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed 25 issues, of which Issue No.
Among the witnesses who testified on behalf of the appellant in support of his companytentions on this issue was W. 8, an Under Secretary to the Election Commission.
He produced Exs.
Returning Officers to the said Constituency.
Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, A.V. Rangam and J. Eswanah for the Appellant.
X 1 companytaining documents relating to the relevant pro ceedings companynected with the appointment of the Additional Assistant Returning Officers.
According to the result declared by the Re turning Officer, the appellant secured 2,51,172 votes while the 1st respondent, the election petitioner, secured 2,48,725 votes.
The numberification was signed by the Under Secretary.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 of 1985.
The election was set aside by the High Court solely on the basis of Issue No.
Impersonation of voters, and Corrupt practices.
B 25 by the Secretary to the Election Commission.
1 of 1985.
The pleading in regard to this issue is companytained in paragraph 13 of the Election Petition.
The amended numberification date 30 11 84 was also companymunicated to the Chief Electoral Officer, Andhra Pradesh and a companyy of it was also companymuni cated to the Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh.
K. Ganeshan on 18.11.1984 who was at that time, the Secretary to the Election Commission of India.,
The election was challenged by the 1st respondent broad ly on three grounds Illegalities and irregularities in the companynting of votes.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMMEN, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the high Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 25.1.1988 in Election Petition No.
B 22 to B 28 and Exs.
A 55 is the companyy of the numberification issued by the Election Commission of India and as is clear from the document, it was published in the A.P. Gazette.
These irregular ities have taken place during the companynting in all the companynt ing hails numbering 7 in total.
The Commission received proposals from the Chief Electoral Officer, Andhra Pradesh, appointing Asst.
He companytended that the officers were properly appointed and duly authorised.
Vasudev Pillai, T.V.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Subodh Markandeya, Smt.
The 1st respondent filed Election Petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 195 1 43 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act seeking a declaration that the election of the appel lant was void and that the 1st respondent was duly elected from the said Constituency.
Chitra Markandeya, G. Seshagiri Rao, Ms. Usha Saraswat, P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. A. Subhashini and M. Narayan Reddy inperson, for the Respondents.
The numberification of Ex.
B 24 was issued by the Under Secretary but the approval was made as per Ex.
