Rule 5 of A.P. Panchayat Raj ElectionTribunal in Respect of Gram Panchayat Rules, 1995 (for short the Rules, 1995). - Deposit of Rs.100/- along with Election petition is mandatory - No court can give time beyond the 30 days from the date of original cause of action - Petitioner not vigilant failed to deposit the amount at the time of return of case bundle with objections or after completion of court staff strike by 20-10-2013 - - Election Tribunal cum Junior Civil Judge dismissed the Election petition on the ground of not depositing security amount of Rs.100/- as per Rule 5 - held on 27-7-2013 - Election petition filed on 24-8-2013 with in 30 days - on the same day petition was returned with an objection that security amount of Rs.100/- was not deposited along with petition.-staff of the Court was on strike from 19.8.2013 to 20.10.2013- represented the petition on 11.11.2013 duly complying with objection and filed lodgment schedule on the same day. - Petitioner gave explanation fornon payment of security amount along with petition stating that staff of theCourt was on strike from 19.8.2013 to 20.10.2013.- Lower court dismissed the Election Petition for non compliance of Mandatory Rule - Revision - their Lordships Held that the Anjanamma case is not applicable to this case - in that case Though on a plain reading of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 such course is not envisaged; this Court proceeded to give benefit of doubt to a person if Rs.100/- is not paid along with Election Petition when it was originally presented but has complied with the mandate within one month, the limitation prescribed for filing Election Petition -petitioner ought to have been diligent in at-least filing the lodgment schedule immediately after the strike was over i.e., on 20.10.2013. Even after petition was returned, the petitioner did not take steps to file lodgment schedule immediately but filed the same only on 11.11.2013- Revision Dismissed - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports



Election to the post of Sarpanch and other ward members of
Narasampalli Gram Panchayat  was held on 27.7.2013
Challenging the Grama Panchayat Elections, petitioner filed election petition C.F.No. 2484 of 2013
before the Election Tribunal on 24.8.2013.  
Since the staff of the Court was on
strike from 19.8.2013 to 20.10.2013, the petition was submitted before the
Presiding Officer and the same petition was returned on 28.10.2013 with certain
objections.   
One of the objections taken was on the maintainability of the
petition, since security amount of Rs.100/- was not deposited along with
petition.
Petitioner represented the petition on 11.11.2013 duly complying with objection
and filed lodgment schedule on the same day.  
 Petitioner gave explanation for
non payment of security amount along with petition stating that staff of the
Court was on strike from 19.8.2013 to 20.10.2013.

The Election Tribunal by order dated 13.2.2014 dismissed the
petition on the ground that the petition was not presented along with deposit of
Rs.100/- within 30 days as mandated by Rule 5 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Election
Tribunal in Respect of Gram Panchayat Rules, 1995 (for short the Rules, 1995).

Aggrieved thereby the election petitioner preferred this revision.

Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995.  Rule reads as under:
"5(i) At the time of presentation of the petition, the petitioner shall
deposit with it in cash Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) as security
for the costs of same.
Explanation :-Where the election of more than one returned candidate
is called in question a separate deposit shall be made in respect of
each such returned candidate.
(ii) If the provisions of sub-rule (i) are not complied with, the Election
Tribunal shall dismiss the petition.
(iii) Upon compliance with the provision of sub rule (1) the Election
Tribunal shall proceed to enquire into the petition."

  As seen from the above extracted provision, Rule 5 (i) is in
mandatory terms. 
It mandates election petitioner to deposit Rs.100/- in cash as
security for the costs of the petition.  
Sub Rule (ii) is again in mandatory
terms.
If the mandate of sub rule (i) is not complied with, the Election Tribunal
should
dismiss the petition.  
 It is thus clear that provision in Rule 5 is mandatory
and if
for any reason amount of Rs.100/- is not deposited along with the election
petition, the Election Tribunal has no option but to dismiss the said petition.
Rule does not vest any discretion in the Election Tribunal to entertain the
election
petition even if for justifiable cause and reason the petitioner was restrained
from complying with the said mandate, within the time fixed.
 In ANAJAMMA Vs S PUSHPAMMA AND ANOTHER  this Court            
considered similar issue.   It is held that if petitioner in an election
petition
complied with the mandate of Rule 5 of the Rules in all respects and
presented/represented the petition within one month, such petition is
maintainable. 
Though on a plain reading of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 such
course is not envisaged; this Court proceeded to give benefit of doubt to a
person if Rs.100/- is not paid along with Election Petition when it was
originally
presented but has complied with the mandate within one month, the limitation
prescribed for filing Election Petition.
In the case on hand, the 30 days limitation expired long ago and
the fee was not paid within 30 days.    Furthermore, even assuming that the
petitioner has bonafide cause when he originally presented the Election
Petition,
petitioner ought to have been diligent in at-least  filing the lodgment schedule
immediately after the strike was over i.e., on 20.10.2013.  Even after petition
was returned, the petitioner did not take steps to file lodgment schedule
immediately but filed the same only on 11.11.2013.
   In the facts of this case the discretion exercised by this Court in
ANAJAMMA cannot be extended, as the election petition was not presented  
within one month.  There is no error in the decision arrived at by the Election
Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. -2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit against the
respondents for recovery of certain money based on a contract.

As per the admitted plaint averments,
the office of the defendants is located in Pargi,
the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi,
the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was
executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.

 According to the petitioner, as the acceptance of the
contract made by the respondents was received by him at
Malkajgiri, the Court at Malkajgiri has territorial jurisdiction.


The lower Court while returning the plaint has observed
that the ingredients of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure
are not satisfied as the place of work or business of the
respondents does not fall within its jurisdiction or that the
property in respect of which the contract has been executed is
also not situated within its jurisdiction.
A further observation
was made that though initially the p…
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.
Sub :- Quash the criminal proceedings
Offence :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997
Summary :-
 The investigation revealed that
clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the
exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually
facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation,
filed the charge-sheet.
  The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded
against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for
short).

    Section 5 of the Act reads as under:
Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with
examination works:
No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a
public examination shall, except where he is permitted by
virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or
cause to be divulged or make known to any other person
any information o…
Read more

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

the power of the revenue Court in deciding the disputed questions
of fact.

The application before the Mandal Revenue Officer
was filed under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land
and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971).

Thereupon in accordance with the provision contained in the A.P.
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, the Mandal
Revenue Officer conducted enquiry and after giving due
opportunity to the objectors and on detailed consideration of the
revenue records, passed orders on 15.03.1991.
The objection as
to maintainability of such application and the competency of the
Mandal Revenue Officer to decide the disputed questions of fact
with reference to the succession was considered and specifically
rejected by the Mandal Revenue Officer.
 In support of his
decision, the Mandal Revenue Officer placed reliance on the
provision contained in Rule 9(1)(a)(i) read with Rule 9(1)(c)(i) of
the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rule…
Read more