ORDER :

T. Rajani, J.

1. This application is filed seeking to insert Paragraph 8(a) to (d) after Paragraph 8 in the election petition and for consequential amendments.

2. The grounds, on which the said amendment is sought for to the election petition, are as follows:

As per Section 33 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, "the Act"), a nomination paper complete in the prescribed form, signed by a candidate and by an elector of the constituency as proposer, should be delivered to the returning officer within the prescribed period. A candidate has to file an affidavit alongwith his nomination paper as prescribed in Form 26. The 1st respondent has deliberately filed a false affidavit in Form 26 by not disclosing the criminal case pending against him in CC No. 370 of 2012 and the charges were also framed as on the day of filing his nomination. As per Section 33(A) of the Act, it is incumbent upon every candidate, who is contesting election, to give information about his assets, criminal antecedents, and other affairs. The petitioner has suppressed the material information resulting in disinformation and misinformation to the voters. The 1st respondent, who is the returned candidate, has failed and neglect to disclose the information of pending criminal case against him. Hence, it is required that the same has to be incorporated in the election petition.

3. The 1st respondent filed counter contending that the EA seeking amendment is not maintainable. Section 80 of the Act mandates that no election shall be called, in question, except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part-VI. Section 81 stipulates that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 of the Act. A combined reading of the above provisions makes it clear that no further grounds can be available after the filing of the election petition, even by way of amendment. Once the election petition is filed, with the grounds, within 45 days as stipulated under Section 100, it is not permissible to seek inclusion of any other grounds subsequent to the filing of election petition.

A crime was registered against the 1st respondent for the offences, which are not grave in nature. The purport of introducing Section 33-A of the Act is to inform the voter against the contesting candidate so that they can assess while exercising the franchise. Section 33-A(3) of the Act stipulates that such an affidavit shall be displayed to declare the said factum to the public. The non-disclosure is neither intentional nor wanton, but due to lack of advice. The same cannot be a ground for an amendment. So far as the conviction is concerned, the 1st respondent was convicted, but he preferred an appeal and by virtue of the orders dated 29.1.2018 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 31 of 2018 in Crl.A. No. 32 of 2018, the sentence and conviction were suspended. Hence, the 1st respondent does not suffer from any disqualification as contemplated under the Act. Hence, the petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard Sri B. Nalini Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent; Sri K. Mohana Rami Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 13; and the learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department appearing for the 14th respondent.

5. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the petitioner was not aware of the criminal case that was registered against the 1st respondent, he could not mention the said fact in the petition and that since he came to know about the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner after filing of the EP, he had to seek amendment of the EP by way of this interim application.

6. The respondents' Counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1987 (Supp.) SCC 93, t