Back
2019 Supreme(Telangana) 396
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J.
Dodla Eshwer Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State Election Commissioner, State Election Commission And Others – Respondents
WP No.10195 of 2019
Decided on : 17-10-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr. Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy
For the Respondent: Sri G. Vidyasagar, Sr. Counsel for Sri P. Sudheer Rao, Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy
Point of Law :
Article 324 of the Constitution has to be read in the light of the constitutional scheme and the said Article operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation and the words “superintendence, direction and control” as well as “ conduct of all elections” are in the broadest terms
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, 243 (K) and 324 - Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 - Sections 211 (1), 233 and 242 - Sole contestant - Involvement of huge sum of money - Abuse of money coupled with exertion - Petitioner being a candidate sponsored by a recognized political party contested to the post and District by filing his nomination - Two other candidates, one of them, the 7th respondent being candidate also sponsored by a recognized political party filed his nomination for the said MPTC post - Out of three candidates, one of candidates withdrew his nomination within the time stipulated for such withdrawals of nominations and two candidates, i.e. petitioner and the 7th respondent were in fray - 7th respondent also voluntarily withdrew his nomination and petitioner being sole contestant was declared as elected for the post of MPTC unanimously and Form-X was issued to him - 7th respondent has given a complaint to 4th respondent-Returning Officer alleging he was abducted and forcibly made to withdraw from the contest for election to the post -
Finding of the Court:
Chief Election Commissioner has thus to pass appropriate orders on receipt of reports from the Returning Officer with regard to any situation arising in the course of an election and power cannot be denied to him to pass appropriate orders - Power has to be exercised with promptitude - Whether an order passed is wrong, arbitrary or is otherwise invalid, relates to mode of exercising the power and does not touch upon the existence of power in him if it is there either under the Act or the Rules made in behalf, or under Article - Entitled to exercise certain powers under Article 324 itself, on its own right, in an area not covered by Acts and the Rules - Whether power is exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner is a completely different question - Court is of the considered view 1st respondent having regard to totality of facts and circumstances and inputs called for and received concluded and declared process void, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity -
Result: Petition fails being devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed
ORDER :
The petitioner being a candidate sponsored by a recognized political party contested to the post of Mandal Praja Parishad, (MPTC) Gaggalapally in Nagarkurnool Mandal and District by filing his nomination on 22-04-2019. Two other candidates, one of them, the 7th respondent being candidate also sponsored by a recognized political party filed his nomination on 24-04-2019 for the said MPTC post. Out of the three candidates, one of the candidates withdrew his nomination within the time stipulated for such withdrawals of nominations and two candidates, i.e. the petitioner and the 7th respondent were in fray. According to the petitioner, the 7th respondent also voluntarily withdrew his nomination on 28-04-2019 and the petitioner being the sole contestant was declared as elected for the post of MPTC unanimously and Form-X was issued to him. That on 29-04-2019, the 7th respondent has given a complaint to the 4th respondent-Returning Officer alleging that he was abducted and forcibly made to withdraw from the contest for election to the post of MPTC by the petitioner with the help of four other accomplices and that the petitioner offered an amount of Rs.20.00 lacs and has paid Rs.10.00 lacs for withdrawal from the contest. The petitioner also filed a complaint on 30–04– 2019 disowning any role in withdrawal of the candidature of the 7th respondent from contest. That after 24 hours of withdrawal of his nomination, the 7th respondent has given a complaint against the petitioner solely due to the pressure of protest by the villagers. That the 1st respondent contrary to the procedure established ordered for enquiry by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent-District Collector & District Election Authority, in turn vide his proceedings dated 01–05–2019 addressed to the 1st respondent-State Election Commission opined that the allegation of forcibly making the 7th respondent to sign the withdrawal form is not true and appears to be an after thought. As regards the bribe allegedly paid for withdrawing the nomination, though the money of Rs.10 lacs has been deposited with the Police along with the complaint, the source of money could not be clearly established and the matter is to be examined by the Police which is subject matter of a criminal case registered in that behalf. While opining so, the 3rd respondent-District Collector & District Election Authority sought necessary directions as to declaring the results to the post of MPTC Gaggalapally under “unanimous” category, as there was no contest. The 1st respondent-State Election Commission, in turn after calling for inputs on the incident from the 3rd respondent District Collector and 6th respondent-Superintendent of Police, having regard to the involvement of huge sum of money of Rs.10 lacs paid for withdrawal from the contest of election and that the amount of Rs.10 lacs was admittedly handed over to the Police by the 7th respondent, declared the election process as void in so far as it relates to the election notification dated 20–04–2019 in respect of the Gaggalapally MPTC and ordered for notification for conduct of election for the said post afresh. Hence this writ petition.
2. The 1st respondent-State Election Commission, represented by its Secretary filed counter affidavit wherein inter alia it is stated that sporadic instances wherein concerted efforts were made by powerful elements to thwart the competition in elections in order to fabricate “unanimous” election through abuse of money coupled with exertion of extreme social and political influence on vulnerable contestants. That in order to curb the abuse of money power and counter the undue influence of anti-social forces, undermining the freedom and fairness of election process, the 1st respondent-State Election Commission has issued order dated 28–04-2019 directing all the Returning Officers to obtain clearance from the District Collectors before issuing the election certificate in Form-X in all cases of unanimous election. T
