1. The appellant was successful candidate in the election to the post of Sarpanch of Rayapalli-D Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District. Respondent No. 1, a defeated candidate, filed a petition under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules") questioning appellant's election. In addition to the challenge to the election of the appellant, Respondent No. 1 also claimed a declaration that he himself has been duly elected and accordingly impleaded Respondents 2, 3 and 4 also as parties to the Election Petition, since the relevant Rules enjoin upon the appellant before the Election Tribunal to implead in his petition all other candidates, who were nominated in elections but had not withdrawn before the polling. Election Petition was set down for trial. After a period of almost two years of the pendency of the petition before the Election Tribunal, an application was filed by Respondent No. 1, being I.A. No. 203 of 2003, under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the name of the third respondent in the Election Petition as Devrampalli Ravikumar instead of Devrampalli Rajkumar alleging that Devrampalli Rajkumar is the brother of Devrampalli Ravikumar. Devrampalli Rajkumar was not a candidate, who was nominated for the election, but it was Devrampalli Ravikumar who was the candidate who had also contested the election.
2. In that application, Election Tribunal directed notice to be issued on 11.9.2003 to the party proposed to be substituted in place of third respondent returnable on 25.9.2003. On 25.9.2003 when the application came up for consideration, the Election Tribunal passed the following order:
"Proposed party served. Called absent Perused record. In the obtainable circumstance, petition ordered as prayed for.
Sd/- J.C.J, Zaheerabad."
3. As a matter of fact, consideration of the application had taken place on 11.9.2003 and on the application seeking impleadment the Election Tribunal expressed an opinion that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of Respondent No. 1 in wrongly describing person as a party, who ought to have been impleaded. This order was challenged by the appellant before this Court by filing writ petition. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no objection had been taken by the appellant about wrong description of the party when he contested the election petition and his objection was only that the party could be impleaded in exercise of power under Order I. Rule 10 and not by invoking Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, whether application was maintainable under Order VI, Rule 17 or under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was immaterial.
4. Appeal has now been filed before" us questioning the order of the Election Tribunal in ordering impleadment of Devrampally Ravikumar in place of Devrampally Rajkumar as also the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. We have heard Counsel for the parties. The main submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that once Election Petition is filed questioning the election under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act") read with the Rules, such election petition has to be tried in the manner prescribed therefor as expeditiously as possible and that the Rules do prescribe the manner in which the election petition has to be tried, which will not empower the Tribunal either to entertain an application under Order I, Rule 10 or carry out the amendment to the election petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Election Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the amendment petition.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, submitted that the Rules do enjoin upon the election Tribunal to try a petition as early may be as in accordance the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for trial of suits and the mere fact that in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 there is no mention of Order VI, Rule 17 or Order I, Rule 10 will not make a difference since the procedure applicable to the Election petition is as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure for trial of suit and addition of party can be ordered under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Section 233 of the Act provides that no election held under the Act shall be called in question, except by an election petition presented to such authority and in accordance with such Rules as may be made in this behalf.
8. The Rules have been made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 233 and Sub-section (1) of Section 268 of the Act relating to the decision of the election disputes and election offices in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads. Rule 3 says that the election petition shall be presented within thirty days from the date of declaration of the result of the election and Sub-rule (ii) says that the petition shall contain a statement in concise form, the material facts on which the petitioner relies and the particulars of any corrupt practices which he alleges and shall, where necessary, be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively and if the irregularities alleged in the petition are likely to affect the validity of the election of more than one returned candidate, the petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all such returned candidates. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 reads:
"The petitioner may, if he so desires, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidates or of all or any of the returned candidates, as the case may be, claim a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, in which case he shall join as respondents to his petition all other candidates who were nominated for the election but who has not withdrawn before the polling."
9. Rule 7 lays down the procedure for trial of election petitions. Sub-rule (1) says that every election petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal, as early as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for trial of the suits. It also provides that it shall only be necessary for the Election Tribunal to make a memorandum of substance of evidence of any witness examined by him. Sub-rule (2) simultaneously provides that the Election Tribunal shall have the powers, which are vested in a Court in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the matters enumerated therein. Rule 7 reads:
"(1) Every election petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal, as early as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the trial of suits:
Provided that it shall only be necessary for the Election Tribunal to make a memorandum of the substance of evidence of any witness examined by him.
(2) The Election Tribunal shall have the powers, which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters:
(a) discovery and inspection;
(b) enforcing the attendance of witness and requiring the deposit of their expenses;
(c) compelling the production of documents;
(d) examining witnesses on oath;
(e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and
(f) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses, and may summon and examine suo-motu any person whose evidence appears to him to be material."
10. The powers which the Election Tribunal has got while trying election petition, which are vested in a Court while trying the suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, are only for discovery and inspection, enforcement of attendance of witness and requiring deposit of expenses, compelling production of documents, examining witnesses on oath, reception of evidence taken on affidavit and issuing commission for examination of witnesses. Nowhere the rule makes a provision that Election Tribunal shall have the power to permit amendment of election petition or addition, substitution or deletion of parties, which is a specific power available to a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure. Law enjoins upon trial of election petition expeditiously. That being the purpose, the Legislature in its wisdom rightly conferred specific powers on the Election Tribunal while trying election petition, which are enjoined upon a Civil Court while trying civil suit, and not all the powers exercisable by a Civil Court as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. That being the purpose, it has to be assumed that the powers, which are not mentioned in the rules, cannot be exercised by the Election Tribunal, Moreover, power to permit addition of a party after the period of limitation is such a power that can be exercised only when it is specifically conferred on the Tribunal. For that a Division Bench of this Court in Beerapalli Swaminatha Janaki Venkata Ramana Reddy v. Attkuri Ammi Raju and Ors., ILR 1971 AP 277, while dealing with the question of power of Election Tribunal in ordering transposition of party under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure while trying election petition under the Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959, held that such a power is not conferred on the Tribunal and that the Tribunal can exercise only those powers which were conferred upon it.
11. That being the position, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the petition and for that reason also the Election Tribunal was not justified in allowing the application.
12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside, I.A. No. 203 of 2003 filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking substitution of party in place of the impleaded party is dismissed.
Comments