- (1.)The revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Nadendla Appa Rao, the 1st respondent in I.A.No. 999/1981 in O.P.No. 12/1981. Balineni Satyanaryana the 1st respondent in this revision and Nadendla Apparao the petitioner herein and two others contested for the office of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Pedakurapadu in the election held on 4th June, 1981. Nadendla Apparao was declared elected as Sarpanch by a majority of 63 votes over Balineni Satyanarayana Thereupon, Balineni Satyanarayana filed 0 P No. 12/1981 questioning the election of Nadendla Apparao under Rule 50 of the Rules relating to conduct of election etc.. under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. In that petition the petitioner (Balineni Satyanarayana) among other things, alleged the following irregularities against Appa Rao. In Paragraph 4 (b) he stated that some voters died long before the polling day and Appa Rao managed to get his own men personate for such deceased voters and got such votes cast in his favour. He mentioned 8 names. In paragraph 4 (c) he stated that some persons were registered as voters in the Gram Panchayat of Pedakurapadu and also in other Gram Panchayats. They have exercised their franchise in the elections in both the panchayats. He mentioned 48 names. In paragraph 4 (d) he stated that some persons were registered as voters in more than one ward of Pedakurapadu Gram Panchayat and they have exercised their franchise twice. He mentioned 53 names.
(2.)The petition was taken on file. Sri Apparao did not so for file his counter. While so, Balineni Satyanarayana filed I.A. No. 999/1981 to amend the election petition. In that petition he wanted to amend paragraph 4(b) of the Election Petition so as to include the names of 8 more deceased voters whose votes were cast by impersonation, at the instance of Appa Rao. He also wanted to amend paragraph 4(d) of the Election petition so as to include 20 more names, who have voted in more than one Ward of Pedakurapadu Gram Panchayat. He wanted to introduce paragraph 4(dd) in the Election Petition by including 17 names of voters who were working at other places, but whose votes were cast in favour of Appa Rao by false personation in the Gram Panchayat. That petition was opposed by Appa Rao. Nevertheless, the Election Tribunal allowed the Petition. Questioning his order, Sri Appa Rao has filed this revision Petition.
(3.)Sri B.V. Subbaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not question the power of the Election Tribunal to amend the election petition. He did not also question the amendment of paragraph 4(d) that relates to voters who are registered in more than one Ward at Pedakurapadu Panchayat and have exercised their franchise twice. His grievance was against the amendment of paragraph 4(b) and introduction of paragraph 4(dd) in the Election Petition. He submitted that the amendment sought for in paragraph 4(b) and 4(dd) of the Election petition constitute new grounds of corrupt practice and the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to raise them after the period ot limitation prescribed for filing election petition On the other hand, the counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that no new corrupt practice is alleged, but it is only an amplification of the currupt practices that were already alleged in the Election petition, and. thererore,the amendment is in order.