A memo was also filed before the High Court on 17.01.2005, stating The Petitioner humbly submits that at the time of preparing the Election Petition certain of the voters in S. No.91 had agreed to give evidence.
The Petitioner has been informed by the aforesaid persons that they apprehend threat and intimidation.
In the said election petition an application was filed by the first respondent praying for issuance of summons to some witnesses apart from those whose names had been mentioned in the election petition, inter alia, stating I humbly submit that a list of witnesses that are to be examined on my behalf was filed on 17.1.2005.
Whereas the appellant companytested as a candidate of Telangana Rashtra Samiti, the first respondent companytested the said election as a candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party.
An election was held in Musheerabad Assembly Constituency on or about 20.04.2004.
91 was located adjacent to the Central Election Office of the Petitioner.
In view of this petitioners humbly crave leave of this Honourable Court number to disclose their names in the list of witnesses having regard to their safety and prays that the Honourable Court permits production of such witnesses during the trial as per the calendar fixed by this Honourable Court.
4 of 2004.
One of the grounds taken in the election petition was misalignment of the machine asserting that whereas both the parties polled nil votes from a particular booth, the independent candidates polled a high number of votes.
An election petition was filed by the first respondent assailing the said election before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which was numbered as Election Petition No.
For companyducting the said election electronic voting machines were used.
Whereas the appellant herein polled 53553 votes the first respondent polled 53313 votes.
In the said election petition, it was inter alia, companytended The Petitioner submits that P.S. No.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.6785 of 2005 B. Sinha, J Leave granted.
The first respondent, thus, lost the election by a margin of 240 votes.
Hence this Memo.
The petitioner undertakes to file the necessary application for permission to produce the aforesaid witnesses as companytemplated under law and procedure.
Interpretation of Section 94 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for short, the Act is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.03.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
91 In the said election petition names and identity card numbers of various persons mentioned in the voter list by way of example were mentioned.
