Voting rights in multiple Gram Panchayats and election relief require strict rule compliance; invalid vote findings and automatic declaration both failed.

A voter enrolled in more than one Gram Panchayat was not barred under Section 11(6) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 from casting votes in each Panchayat on the same day; the provision was read as prohibiting voting more than once in the same ward, not voting in different Gram Panchayats, so invalidation of those votes was unsustainable. A declaration that an election petitioner was duly elected could be made only when specifically claimed under the election rules and supported by proof of a majority of valid votes; Rule 15 did not enlarge that power, so the Tribunal could not grant the declaration incidentally.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Act prohibited a person from voting in more than one Gram Panchayat on the same day when he was registered as a voter in both; and (ii) whether the Election Tribunal could declare the election petitioner duly elected without a specific prayer and proof under the Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the Act prohibited a person from voting in more than one Gram Panchayat on the same day when he was registered as a voter in both.

Analysis: Section 11(6) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was treated as in pari materia with Section 14-C(7) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. The earlier Division Bench interpretation of the repealed enactment was followed to hold that the prohibition operates against voting in more than one ward or more than once in the same ward, and not against voting in different Gram Panchayats merely because the person is enrolled in more than one roll. The Tribunal therefore had no basis to invalidate the two votes on the ground that the voters had also voted in another village.

Conclusion: The votes could not be treated as invalid merely because the voters had voted in another Gram Panchayat, and the finding of invalidity was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Election Tribunal could declare the election petitioner duly elected without a specific prayer and proof under the Rules.

Analysis: Section 233 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 requires election disputes to be decided strictly in accordance with the Rules. Under Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules, a declaration that the election petitioner is duly elected can be granted only where such relief is specifically claimed and the petitioner proves receipt of the majority of valid votes. Rule 15 is procedural and does not enlarge the Tribunal's power to grant such relief incidentally in every case where the returned candidate's election is set aside.

Conclusion: In the absence of a specific prayer under Rule 13 and proof of majority of valid votes, the Tribunal was not entitled to declare the election petitioner elected.

Final Conclusion: The election of the returned candidate was liable to be set aside, but the further declaration in favour of the election petitioner was also unsustainable for want of a proper prayer and proof. The writ petition was therefore allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person registered in more than one Gram Panchayat is not prohibited, under Section 11(6), from voting in each such Panchayat on the same day, but a declaration that an election petitioner is duly elected can be made only when specifically sought under the election rules and supported by proof of majority of valid votes.

---