ORDER :

This application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (briefly, ‘CPC’ hereinafter) by the first respondent i.e., Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil (who would be referred to hereinafter as the ‘returned candidate’) for rejection of the election petition i.e., E.P.No.34 of 2019 filed by the petitioner K.Madan Mohan Rao (referred to hereinafter as ‘the election petitioner’) on the ground that the election petition is without any cause of action and is barred by limitation.

2. Heard Mr. Harin P.Raval, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. N.Manohar representing the returned candidate as well as Mr. M.P.Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Ch.Satyasadhan, learned counsel for the election petitioner.

3. Before adverting to the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC (referred to hereinafter as ‘the rejection application), it would be apposite to advert to the election petition. The election petition has been filed by the election petitioner for setting aside the election of the returned candidate to the Lok Sabha from No.05-Zaheerabad Parliamentary Constituency in the general elections held on 11.04.2019 and thereafter to declare him as the duly elected candidate from the said constituency. The election petition has been filed under Sections 81 and 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Section 100(1)(d) (i), (ii) (iii) and (iv) of the aforesaid Act.

4. In the election which was held on 11.04.2019, there were in all twelve candidates who had contested from No.5-Zaheerabad Parliamentary Constituency. Election petitioner contested as a candidate belonging to the Indian National Congress, whereas the returned candidate contested from the Telangana Rashtra Samithi. At the end of the counting, it appeared that election petitioner had secured a total of 4,28,015 votes, whereas the returned candidate had secured a total of 4,34,244 votes, thus he was declared elected by a margin of 6,229 votes. The results were declared on 23.05.2019. Challenging the election of the returned candidate, the related election petition has been filed.

5. It is alleged that election of the returned candidate is liable to be set aside for violation of Election Commission Guidelines formulated pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 224 by the returned candidate. It is alleged that as per the aforesaid guidelines dated 10.10.2018, all candidates were required to submit copies of the newspapers in which their declarations about criminal cases were published to the concerned District Election Officer along with the accounts of election expenses. It is alleged that the returned candidate did not mention about any pending as well as convicted criminal cases. Besides declaration of criminal cases in newspapers should be published in font size of at least twelve and suitably positioned in the newspapers so that directions for wide publicity were complied with in letter and spirit. Publication by the returned candidate in different newspapers was way below the minimum font size of twelve. That apart, the returned candidate had published in English language the aforesaid information in Telugu newspapers i.e., in Andhra Prabha on 30.03.2019 and Mana Telangana on 08.04.2019. Thus, this was an attempt to deceive the electorate.

5.1. As per Section 6A of Form 26 (election affidavit) as well as guidelines dated 10.10.2018, details of criminal cases should be furnished separately for each case in separate rows in the newspapers as well as in the election affidavit. But the returned candidate had published eighteen different cases in three rows i.e., six cases in each row, that too in a small font to make it appear that there were only three cases. This is alleged to be in violation of the Election Commission Guidelines as well as Form 26 and an attempt to deceive the electorate.

5.2. Election petitioner has also alleged that as per Electio