The Election Petition must be filed in the correct forum, and time spent in a wrong forum cannot be condoned under the Limitation Act.

ORDER :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in IA.No. 326 of 2022 in EOP. No. 02 of 2022.

2. Heard Sri CH. Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner. Despite service of notice on the contesting respondent, there is no representation on their behalf.

3. The brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of this Revision Petition is that a gazette notification dated 07.01.2020 was issued by the Telangana State Election Commission for election of Ward Members of Gadwal Town Municipality scheduling the date of poll as 22.01.2020; that accordingly, elections were held and results were declared on 25.01.2020; that petitioner herein was the successful candidate from Ward No.26 and respondent No.1 was the unsuccessful candidate in the said election. While so, respondent No.1 herein filed EOP.No.02 of 2020 under Section 233 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2019’) on the file of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, to declare election of the revision petitioner as Ward Member from 26 Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality as void and to set aside the same; and further, to declare respondent No.1 herein as elected Ward Member from 26^th Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality.

4. In the said EOP, respondent No.1 herein primarily contended that the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules and Orders made under the Telangana Municipalities and Municipal Corporations Rules, 2020 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, were not complied with, thereby materially affecting the result of election insofar as revision petitioner is concerned and therefore, the election of revision petitioner, being void and inoperative, is liable to be set aside.

5. Revision petitioner entered appearance and filed an application in I.A.No. 41 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of the EOP on the following grounds:-

(i) That the III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not a constituted Election Tribunal and therefore, the said Court has no legal jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the Election Petition on merits.

(ii) That the Election Petition does not disclose cause of action to challenge legally and validly elected returned candidate.

(iii)That the Election Petition is not in accordance with the mandatory statutory provisions of the Act, 2019 and the Rules, 2020, since respondent No.1 herein failed to deposit security amount before the Court while presenting the Election Petition, which is in contravention of Rule 8(1)(ii) of the Rules 2020.

6. It was further averred that III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not Principal District Judge for Mahabubnagar District, in terms of Section 2(4) of CPC, Section 10 of AP Civil Courts Act, 1972 and also under Section 3(17) of General Clauses Act, 1897, therefore, the said Court cannot be construed as Election Tribunal to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition on merits. It was further averred that the State Government, on revenue side, has reorganized the Districts, whereunder Mahabubnagar District was divided into five Districts, consequence of which Jogulamba-Gadwal District was formed, however, on judicial side, no such reorganization of Districts in Telangana was done by the High Court of Telangana and as such, III Additional District Judge, Gadwal cannot be treated as the Principal District Judge for Jogulamba-Gadwal District to entertain, try and dispose of the Election Petition.

7. Respondent No.1 herein filed counter resisting the said application and contended that as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules, 2020, when more than one District Judge is having territorial jurisdiction, then Principal District Judge will act as ‘Election Tribunal’ as per the intent of State legislature. It was