IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Kantekar Madhumohan - Petitioner
Vs.
The Municipal Election Authority, rep. by its Commissioner & Director, Municipal Administration, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana and others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.22334 OF 2021
Decided On : 18-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 - Telangana Municipalities (Election Petitions) Rules, 2020 - Rule 3, 10 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 - Election - To declare participation of Respondent in election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of Municipal Council, as void and illegal; to declare the election of Returned Candidates, Vice Chairperson of Municipal Council as void; to declare election of Vice Chairperson of Municipal Council whole as void and order for fresh election - Petitioner contends allowing amendment would change nature of very Election Petition which is not permissible under law - As per Rules, Election Petition has to be filed within 30 days from date of declaration of result of election and present amendment is not permissible as it is beyond said limitation period - Respondent contends amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature - There is no change in nature of Election Petition by amendment - Rule 3 of Rules, applies to Election Petition but not to an amendment application, Rule 3 of Rules cannot be pressed into service - Amendment sought is only a consequential relief but cause of action and main prayer in Election Petition remains same - Whether Election Tribunal has power to invoke procedure laid down under CPC to its entirety or only to aspects which are specifically mentioned under Rule 10 of Rules - Whether impugned order suffers from any irregularity.
Finding of the Court :
Rule 9 of Rules deal with Procedure before Election Tribunal and as per same, every Election Petition shall be inquired into by Election Tribunal ‘as nearly as may be’ in accordance with procedure applicable to trial of suits under CPC - As per Rule 10 of Rules, Election Tribunal shall have powers vested in a Court under CPC, and shall be deemed to be a civil Court while trying a suit in respect of matters - It is relevant to note that as per Rule 9 of Rules, every Election Petition shall be enquired into by Election Tribunal ‘as nearly as may be’ in accordance with procedure applicable to trial of suits under CPC - At cost of repetition, only aspect which has to be considered by Election Tribunal is that whether procedure laid down under Rules is in conflict with provisions of C.P.C. Rule 9 of Rules specifically refers that every Election Petition shall be enquired into by Election Tribunal ‘as nearly as may be’ in accordance with procedure applicable to trial of suits under C.P.C. - Respondent have filed the present Election Petition within 30 days from date of declaration of result of election - Court held that said limitation would only apply to filing of Election Petition and not to filing of any other application including application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
Result : Writ Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 02.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.789 of 2021 in EOP No.124 of 2020 by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar - cum - Election Tribunal constituted under Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short, ‘the Act’) allowing the amendment to the said Election Petition, as illegal and contrary to the Telangana Municipalities (Election Petitions) Rules, 2020 (for short, ‘the Rules’) issued in G.O.Ms.No.30 Municipal Administration and Urban Development(MA) Department, dated 11.02.2020 and to set aside the same.
2. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Govt.Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for Respondent No.1, Sri P.Sudheer Rao, learned standing counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned standing counsel for Respondent Nos.R.5 and 7, Sri M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent No.6, and Sri Gokul Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.8 to 12 and perused the record.
3. FACTS OF THE CASE
(ii) The Petitioner herein/the 5th Respondent therein had filed counter in the said Election Petition. Thereafter, the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.789 of 2021 in E.OP No.124 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short, ‘the CPC’) before the Election Tribunal, seeking permission of the Tribunal, to delete Paragraph No.5 in the Prayer in Election Petition in toto and substitute with “to declare that the second highest votes secured candidate is the elected candidate as Chair person of Tukkuguda Municipality”.
(iii) The said petition vide I.A.No.789 of 2021 was filed on the ground that the amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature and the same is in accordance with the pleadings, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents therein and by virtue of the amendment, the nature of the Election Petition will not change.
(iv) The Petitioner herein opposed the said I.A.No.789 of 2021 on the ground that the Election Tribunal does not have the power to entertain an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and the Election Tribunal has to enquire into Election Petitions by following the procedure laid down under the Act and the amendment would change the nature of the very Election Petition itself.
(v) The Election Tribunal had allowed the said I.A.No.789 of 2021 holding that the amendment sought by the Petitioners therein is only clarificatory does not change the nature of the dispute or the cause of action and no new case was introduced and such amendment would cause no prejudice to the Respondents.
4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
(ii) Rule 10 of the Rules, deals with the power of Election Tribunal and as per the same, the Election Tribunal shall have the power which is vested in a Court under the CPC, and shall be deemed to be a civil Court while trying a suit in respect of the matters specifically mentioned therein. Therefore, except the said matter, the Election Tribunal cannot invoke the other powe
Kummari Ramulu Vs. Gangaram Penta Reddy
Chaluvadi Hanumayamma Vs. Sandrapati Jainabee
Rajender Singh Vs. Smt. Usha Rani
Muniraju Gowda P.M. Vs. Munirathna
Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P.Joshi
K.D.Deshmukh Vs. Amritlal Jayaswal
C.Maniyamma Vs. Junior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, Dist. Mahaboobnagar
Jambarthi Kasim @ Kashiram Vs. Bommidi Jagannatham
M.Ganganna Vs. A.Chitma Guravaiah
As per Rule 3 of the Rules, an Election Petition shall be instituted within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election.
The Odisha Municipal Act requires only summary allegations in election petitions, contrasting with the detailed pleading requirements under the RP Act, making the dismissal of the petition improper a....
The mandatory requirement for security deposit in election petitions is essential and non-compliance leads to dismissal, emphasizing the procedural integrity governed by the Chhattisgarh Municipaliti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.