M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. This application is filed by the petitioner in E.P. No. 2 of 2014 seeking to issue a Commission under Order XXVI Rule 4(1)(a) and Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code to examine:

(i) the Chief Police Officer, A1 Gharb Police Station, Ibrahim Mohd, A1 Midfa Street, A1 Manakh, Sharjah, Land Mark: Near Sharjah Municipality, PO Box No. 461, Sharjah;

(ii) the Chief Police Officer, Jabel Ali Police Station, Jabel Ali Industrial Area, No. 3, Near Mohd. Bin Zayed Road, United Arab Emirates; and

(iii) Embassy of India, rep. by Ambassador, PO Box No. 4090 Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates;

for providing originals of material documents Annexure-VI and Annexure-K filed along with the Election Petition.

In the Election Petition, the applicant/petitioner had sought to set aside the election of 1st respondent as a Member to the Telangana Legislative Assembly from 011-Armoor Assembly Constituency, Nizamabad District.

2. The polling for the above assembly constituency was held on 30-04-2014 and the results were declared on 16-05-2014. The 1st respondent herein, who contested on a ticket of Telangana Rashtra Samithi, was declared elected from the said Constituency.

3. The main ground on which the applicant has questioned the election of 1st respondent in the Election Petition is that 1st respondent had availed a loan of AED 445,000 from United Arab Bank; that 1st respondent had not repaid the said loan to the said Bank and had returned back; and consequently, a criminal case No. 5026 of 2013 was registered against him at Sharjah Police Head Quarters. He alleged that he had obtained from the Department of Immigration, UAE certain documents in Arabic, the translation of which are filed as Annexure-VI to the Election Petition, which indicates that 1st respondent allegedly issued a cheque for AED 445,000 to the United Arab Bank, which was dishonoured and the said Annexure indicates that a Criminal case has been registered against 1st respondent and he is liable to be arrested therefore.

4. It is further contended that 1st respondent had also been charged for issuing a bad cheque in bad faith for AED 24,000 to an entity "Dubai First", which cheque appears to have been dishonoured and a case vide Listing No. 6413/2013 dt.02-09-2013 was registered in Jebel Ali Police Station, Dubai Head Quarters. He alleged that he had obtained from the Department of Immigration. UAE certain documents in Arabic, the translation of which are filed as Annexure-IX to the Election Petition, which indicates that 1st respondent allegedly issued a cheque for AED 24,000 to the entity "Dubai First", which was dishonoured and the said Annexure indicates that a Criminal case has been registered against 1st respondent and he is liable to be arrested therefor.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that 1st respondent has not given the above referred information in the affidavit filed in Form 26 before the Returning Officer (filed as Annexure-4 to the E.P.); that he had stated therein that he was not accused of any offences punishable with imprisonment for 2 years or more in pending cases except C.C. No. 128 of 2013 before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad; and that the declaration of assets given in the said affidavit did not include the loan taken for AED 445,000. He contended that the Supreme Court of India in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another v. Union of India and another 2004 (1) ALT (Crl.) 175 (SC) : (2003) 4 SCC 399 had held that a voter had a fundamental right to know the antecedents of a candidate as part of his right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and therefore a candidate contesting a general election has to give a declaration about various criminal cases he was involved in, as also a correct declaration of his assets. He pointed out that contesting candidates cannot simply write "not applicable'" in the column where these details have to be given in the aff