Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J.
Bingi Venkatesham - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 31701 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2023
Jurisdiction - Election Disqualification - Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 - Sec. 21(3) - Tribunal Rules - Exs.A.1 to A.14 - Disqualification of Candidate - Election Tribunal's Jurisdiction - Dismissal of Writ Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was declared elected as Member of the 5th Ward, Gram Panchayat, but the respondent filed an Election O.P. alleging that the petitioner had three children at the time of nomination, which is against the Tribunal Rules. The Election Tribunal found the petitioner to have three children and declared the election void, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the Election O.P. filed by the respondent under Sec. 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 r/w Tribunal Rules. The petitioner failed to disprove the contention of the respondent, and thus the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Issues: 1. Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to entertain the Election O.P. 2. Disqualification of the petitioner for having more than two children at the time of nomination.
Ratio Decidendi: The Election Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain the Election O.P. filed under Sec. 21(3) of the Act. The petitioner's failure to disprove the contention of the respondent led to the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Election Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain an Election O.P. filed under Sec. 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, and the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to disprove the allegations (!) (!) .
The election of the petitioner was challenged on the grounds that he had three children at the time of nomination, which is against the Tribunal Rules, and that he suppressed this fact in his nomination papers (!) (!) .
The Election Tribunal found that the petitioner indeed had three children, relying on various documents such as bonafide certificates, birth certificates, family details, and ration cards, which are presumed to be correct and are admissible evidence under relevant laws (!) (!) .
The Tribunal's decision was based on the evidence, believing the respondent’s version that the petitioner had three children, and disbelieving the petitioner’s denial, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner was disqualified under Sec. 21(3) of the Act (!) .
The petitioner’s argument that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the matter should have been decided by the District Court was rejected, as the rules specifically provide for the Election Tribunal to hear such cases (!) (!) .
The Rules governing election petitions specify the grounds for challenging an election, including disqualification due to having more than two children at the time of nomination, and set strict procedural requirements, including time limits (!) (!) (!) .
The provisions also clarify that the remedy for disqualification issues at the time of election or arising thereafter is available through the election petition process and through separate procedures such as application to the District Court, but these are distinct remedies (!) (!) .
The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to hear the election challenge and found that the petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence to disprove the respondent’s allegations regarding his number of children (!) .
Consequently, the Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal’s order was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal’s authority and the correctness of its decision (!) .
No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
JUDGMENT
1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records in Election O.P. No.6 of 2019 dtd. 21/7/2022 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently, prayed to set aside the same.
2. The Election to the office of Member of 5th Ward, Gram Panchayat, Lakudaram Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District, was held on 25/1/2019. The petitioner herein and the respondent No.8 herein contested in the said election. The petitioner was declared as elected having polled 65 valid votes. Questioning the election of the petitioner as Member of the 5th ward of Gram Panchayat, the respondent No.8 filed Election O.P.No.6 of 2019 under Sec. 21 (3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short "the Act") r/w 2 (2) (1)(A) of Telangana Panchayat Raj (Authority to dispose petitions in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules, 2018 (for short "Tribunal Rules"), issued in G.O.Ms.No.4, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Part 3) Department, dtd. 29/1/2019 on the ground that the petitioner herein is having three children at the time of filing of the nomination, which is against the Tribunal Rules and the petitioner suppressing that fact has filed his nomination stating that he is having only two children. The petitioner herein has filed sworn statement before the respondent No.2 for accepting the nomination. The respondent No.8 herein alleged that as on the date of commencement of the Act, the petitioner herein was not eligible to contest the election of Ward Member in view of disqualification provided under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 21 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been declared as successful candidate in the election. It was also alleged in the Election Petition that respondent No.8 has gathered the particulars of the children of the petitioner from the Veda English Medium School, Kukunoorpally Village, which is recognized by the Government and also the medical records from the Vijaya Hospital, Siddipet, which shows that the petitioner is having three children and placed reliance upon the certificates issued by the Government. Ex.A.8 is the original bonafide certificate of the first child of the petitioner issued by the Head Master/Principal, Veda English Medium School, Kukunoorpally, Ex.A.9 is the original bonafide certificate of the second child of the petitioner issued by the Head Master/Principal of Veda English Medium School, Ex.A.10 is the birth certificate of the second child of the petitioner issued on 22/2/2019 by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Ex.A.11 is the original birth certificate of third child of the petitioner issued on 22/2/2019 by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Ex.A.12 is the child development project officer Lr.No.A/71/2016 dtd. 3/2/2019 enclosing the family members details, Ex.A.13 is the C.C of National Food Security Card and Ex.A.14 is the copy of new ration card (electric print). Another ground urged in the Election O.P was that the petitioner used corrupt practices and distributed alcohol and net cash to the voters in 5th ward and thereby influenced voters. Thus the respondent No.8 herein prayed to declare the election of the petitioner herein as void and to declare him as elected having polled highest number of votes.
3. The Election Petition was contested by the petitioner herein denying all the allegations and stated that the election petition is not maintainable and the respondent No.8 has not made any appeal seeking rejection of his nomination before the Returning Officer who is an Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority was also not made as party to the Election Petition and the Election Petition filed is a defective one and as such it is not maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed. The parties lead evidence before the E
The Election Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain an Election O.P. filed under Sec. 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, and the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to disprove ....
The finality of the electoral roll and the inability to challenge its validity in an election petition.
A candidate cannot be declared elected merely based on receiving the second highest votes unless they prove eligibility under relevant laws following disqualification of another candidate.
A candidate can challenge the election of another under Section 44-A of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, and disqualification occurs for having a third child born after the statutory cutoff date.
A writ petition challenging an election on grounds of disqualification is not maintainable when a specific statutory remedy via an election petition exists, as Article 243-O bars judicial interferenc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
