IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Nandu Lal Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Kunamneni Sambasiva Rao - Respondent
Election Petition No.3 Of 2024
Decided On : 09-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the election petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments of the election petitioner regarding violations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's determination of issues framed for trial. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. defenses presented by respondent no.1 and their implications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal standards regarding election petition outcomes. (Para 12 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. issue of evidence and compliance with statutory requirements. (Para 17) |
| 7. conclusion about the election's validity and its implications. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. election outcomes are protected unless substantial grounds for interference exist. (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard Mr. Ramesh Kuthumbaka, learned counsel for Election Petitioner, Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Mr. Ramesh Katikineni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 16, Mr. Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. None appears for respondent No.15.
2. The Election Petitioner filed the present Election Petition under Section - 81 read with 100, 101 and 125A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and Rule - 3 of the Rules to Regulate the trial of Election Petitions under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, seeking the following reliefs:
i. to declare the election of Respondent No.1 as Returned Candidate for 117- Kothagudem Assembly Constituency, Telangana State as null and void under Section - 100(1)(d)(iv) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 as respondent No.1 failed to comply Form-26 Affidavit prescribed by Rule - 4A of the CONDUCT OF ELECTION RULES 1961.
ii. to declare respondent No.2 as Returned Candidate for 117 -Kothagudem Assembly Constituency, Bhadhradri - Kothagudem District, Telangana State, under Section - 101 read with 98 (c) and 84 of R.P. Act, 1951 with effect from 04.12.2023.
iii. to impose imprisonment and penalty under Section - 125 A (iii) of the RP Act, 1951 against respondent No.1 under Section - 99 of RP Act, 1951 for his failure to furnish the required information, concealing the material information and for giving false Form-26 affidavit dated 08.11.2023, which is prescribed by Rule - 4A of the CONDUCT OF ELECTION RULES 1961.
iv. to communicate the decision of this Court in this matter to the Election Commission of India and the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly in terms of Section - 103 of the RP Act, 1951.
v. to Grant costs of the petition.
3. The election petitioner has filed this election petition contending as follows:
i) He is the resident of Kothagudem Town which comes under 117-Kothagudem Assembly Constituency. His Aadhar Card Number is 7175 6675 8671 and Voter ID Number is KYT 1505502.
ii) Vide Memo No.4004/Elecs.D/A1/2023-1, dated 09.10.2023 and Gazette Notification No.37, dated 03.11.2023 issued by the Election Commission of India (for short ‘ECI’), the following schedule of elections was declared to elect the Members to the Telangana State Legislative Assembly-2023 for total 119 Assembly Constituencies in Single Phase including 117-Kothagudem Assembly Constituency.
a) Date to file the nominations : 03.11.2023 to 10.11.2023
b) Scrutiny of nomination papers : 13.11.2023
c) Polling Date : 30.11.2023
d) Counting and declaration of result : 03.12.2023
iii) Respondent No.1 contested in the said election as a candidate set up by the Communist Party of India (CPI), while respondent No.2 contested as a candidate set up by the All India Forward Bloc Party’. Apart from them, 28 other candidates also contested in the said election for the Post of MLA to 117-Kothagudem Assembly Constituency (hereinafter referred to as ‘Subject Constituency’).
iv) The petitioner cast his vote in the said election conducted on 03.12.2023 for the subject constituency. Results were declared and respondent No.1 was declared as ‘Returned Candidate’ for the subject constituency, and Gazette Notification No.44, dated 04.12.202
Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh
Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant
National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Felix Correa
Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India
Resurgence India v. Election Commission
Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao v. M. Budda Prasad
Sureshchandra Bhandari v. Neena Vikram Verma
Durga Shanka Mehata v. Raghuraj
Mairembam Prithviraj v. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh
Mopuragundu Thippeswamy v. K. Eranna
Mayanglambam Rameshwar Singh v. Yengkhom, Surchandra
S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commission
Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy v. Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy
Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commanchen (dead) by LRs.
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vatika Township Private Limited
District Collector, Vellore District v. K. Govindaraj
Mannalal Jain v. State of Assam
Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik
State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath
State through CBI v. Hemendhra Reddy
General Electric Co. v. Renusagar Power Co.
Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu
Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
Union of India (UOI) v. Association for Democratic Reforms
Sambhu Prasad Sharma v. Charandas Mahant
Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari
Sushil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar
Harsh Kumar v. Bhagwan Sahai Rawat
Jyoti Priya Mallick v. State of West Bengal
Vashist Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra
Kamta Prasad Upadhyaya v. Sarjoo Prasad Tiwari
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy
Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar
The election petition was dismissed due to failure to prove that the alleged non-compliance with election affidavit laws materially affected the election outcome.
Point of Law : In the event of a necessary party not being made a party to the Election Petition, it would be incumbent upon the Court to dismiss the petition.
Election petitions alleging affidavit suppression must plead full corrupt practice particulars including pendency and material election result effect for improper acceptance; deficiency invites Order....
Candidates must fully disclose criminal cases and asset details during elections, as failure constitutes corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act, impacting informed voting.
Election petitions must plead concise material facts under Section 83(1)(a) RP Act to disclose cause of action; deficient, vague pleadings warrant dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without trial.
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....
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.