Election Tribunal invalidates Sarpanch's election due to voter irregularities

The Election Tribunal set aside the petitioner's election as Sarpanch due to two voters casting votes in different villages. The Tribunal declared the first respondent as duly elected. The Court ruled that there was no prohibition in the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 against being registered as a voter in multiple Gram Panchayats. The Tribunal's decision was invalidated on this ground. The Court emphasized that for a petitioner to be declared duly elected, they must plead and prove majority valid votes, which the first respondent did not do. The writ petition succeeded, and a writ in the nature of certiorari was issued.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the election of Sarpanch based on alleged invalid votes.
2. Interpretation of provisions regarding voter registration in multiple Gram Panchayats.
3. Validity of Election Tribunal declaring the election petitioner as duly elected.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, elected as Sarpanch, faced a challenge to his election based on two voters allegedly casting votes in two different villages. The Election Tribunal set aside the petitioner's election, declaring the first respondent as duly elected. The petitioner argued against the challenge, citing lack of awareness, limitation, and lack of aggrieved party status. The Tribunal found the two voters disqualified for voting in two locations. The first respondent opposed the writ petition, supporting the Tribunal's decision based on the invalid votes cast.

2. The key issue here was whether a person can be registered as a voter in multiple Gram Panchayats. The petitioner contended that there was no such prohibition in the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or its Rules. Reference was made to a Division Bench judgment under the repealed 1964 Act. The Court analyzed the provisions and held that the Act did not prohibit voting in two Gram Panchayats on the same day if registered, invalidating the Tribunal's decision based on this ground.

3. Regarding the Election Tribunal's authority to declare the election petitioner as duly elected, the Court referred to Section 233 of the Act and relevant Rules. It was highlighted that an election petitioner seeking such a declaration must specifically plead and prove majority valid votes. The Court cited a previous judgment emphasizing the conditions for declaring a petitioner as duly elected. As the first respondent did not seek such a declaration under Rule 13, the Tribunal's decision to declare the first respondent as elected was deemed improper, leading to the writ petition's success and issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari.

---