IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J.
G. Nagaiah – Appellant
Versus
The Returning Officer, Chandrakal Gram Panchayat and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.36100 of 2022
Decided on : 25-07-2023
Election Petition - Sarpanch Election - Telangana Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2018 - Rule 8 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 8 of Telangana Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2018, sub-rule (3) - The judgment discusses the mandatory disclosure of information relating to criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications by contesting candidates in Panchayat Raj elections. It emphasizes the importance of filling all columns in the nomination form and the consequences of non-disclosure or suppression of information.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and respondent contested the election for the post of Sarpanch. The respondent filed an Election Original Petition (E.O.P.) seeking to set aside the election of the petitioner, citing various irregularities in the nomination process and non-disclosure of required information. The Election Tribunal allowed the E.O.P., setting aside the petitioner's election and declaring the respondent as duly elected. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Election Tribunal's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Election Tribunal's decision. It emphasized the mandatory requirement for contesting candidates to disclose information relating to criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications. The Court found that the petitioner had intentionally not disclosed the required information in the nomination paper, leading to the rejection of his election.
Issues: The issues included the improper acceptance of the petitioner's nomination, non-disclosure of required information, and the respondent's entitlement to relief to set aside the petitioner's election.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of disclosing information as per the Election Rules, 2018, and the consequences of non-disclosure or suppression of information. It cited relevant case law to support the importance of voters' right to know about contesting candidates.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Election Tribunal's decision to set aside the petitioner's election and declare the respondent as duly elected. The Court found that the petitioner's intentional non-disclosure of required information in the nomination paper warranted the rejection of his election.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
2. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the Election Original Petition No.6 of 2019 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Kollapur and the respondent No.6 herein is the petitioner in said E.O.P. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed in this writ petition.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein along with respondent No.6 herein contested the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayath, Chandrakal Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, under SC reserved category. The petitioner was declared as elected for the post of Sarpanch, as he secured more votes than others. Challenging the election of the petitioner, the respondent No.6 has filed E.O.P.No.6 of 2019 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Kollapur, on the following grounds: i) That the petitioner has wrongly mentioned his age as 30 years as on 18.01.2019 whereas as per the documents, his age is 28 years as on 18.01.2019 and the same amounts to suppression of the fact; ii) That in the declaration form, the petitioner has mentioned as Ward No.5 instead of Sarpanch; iii) That the petitioner has submitted two sets of nomination forms viz., in one set, he mentioned his name as Nagesh and in another set, he has mentioned his name as Nagaiah and the signature also varies; iv) That in one set of nomination, he mentioned that he has paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- and in another set no amount has been shown; v) That in one set of nomination, the House number is not mentioned and in the another set of nomination, House Number is mentioned as 4-39 whereas as per voter ID card, the House Number is 1-77; vi) That the Returning Officer has initially rejected the nomination of the petitioner on 19.01.2019, however in the approved nominations list, the name of the petitioner was mentioned as G.Nagaiah and in the successful candidates nomination list dated 22.01.2019, the name of G.Nagesh has been mentioned; vii) That as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of Telangana Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2018 (for short “the Election Rules, 2018”), it is mandatory for the contesting candidates in Panchayat Raj Election has to disclose information relating to criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and educational qualifications along with their nomination papers in the prescribed format as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4909/2002 dated 13.03.2003. Thus the respondent No.6 herein has filed the E.O.P.No.6 of 2019 seeking to set aside the election of the petitioner herein for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chandrakal Village and consequently declare the respondent No.6 herein as duly elected for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chandrakal Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.
4. The petitioner herein has contested the Election O.P by filing his counter affidavit and controverted all the allegations made in the Election O.P.
5. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Election Tribunal framed the following issues:
Durai Muthuswamy vs. N. Nachiappan
Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant
Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India and another
Mandatory disclosure of information by contesting candidates in Panchayat Raj elections, and the consequences of non-disclosure or suppression of information.
The court upheld the returning officer's acceptance of a nomination despite omissions in the affidavit, determining these defects were not substantial and did not materially affect the election resul....
The burden of proof in election petitions alleging improper acceptance of nominations lies with the petitioner to show material effect on election results.
The election of a candidate can be declared void if they fail to disclose material information in their nomination, affecting the election outcome, as per the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act.
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.