ORDER

Heard Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for Election Petitioner, Mr. M.P. Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - Returned Candidate, Mr. K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.7 and Mr. J. Damodar, learned counsel for respondent No.8.

2. This Election Petition is filed by the Election Petitioner under Sections - 80, 81 and 83 read with 100 (1) (d) (i) (iv) and 125(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking the following reliefs:-

i) to declare the election of respondent No.1 to 32-Husnabad Assembly Constituency as null and void and set aside the same;

and ii) to further declare that the Election Petitioner has been duly elected as Member of State Legislative Assembly of 32-Husnabad Assembly Constituency under Section - 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘Act, 1951’).

12. However, in the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 along with

12. However, in the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 along with

3. Election to 32-Husnabad Assembly Constituency (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject constituency’) was held on 07.12.2018. Results were declared as 11.12.2018. Respondent No.1 - Returned Candidate was declared as elected candidate with a majority of 70,530 votes. The petitioner got 46,553 votes and he stood in second position. Respondent Nos.2 to 14 are other contested candidates. Respondent No.15 is the Returning Officer of the subject constituency and his name was struck off by this Court as per the order dated 23.09.2021 in I.A. No.4 of 2019 from the array of respondents in E.P. No.2 of 2019.

4. The election petitioner filed the present election petition on the following grounds:

i) The corrections in column No.7 (b) (VI and Column No.8 were not certified to be true while accepting nomination, and so also column No.10 (1) (B) of Part-B and, thus, the same is against the statutory prescription of Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961;

ii) Affidavit of Form 26 filed by respondent No.1 along with all nomination sets i.e., serial Nos.4, 5 and 22 was not properly

12. However, in the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 along with

verified, nor certified and it was not on oath, as the same should be before Oath Commissioner or Magistrate or Notary Public;

12. However, in the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 along with

iii) Respondent No.1 left over the material blanks and filed Form 26 in a vague manner;

iv) Respondent No.1 suppressed the assets and liabilities and misrepresented the Election Commission as well as respondent No.15 by giving false information in Form 26; and v) Despite raising all the objections including the aforesaid objections by the election petitioner, respondent No.15 - Returning Officer did not consider the same which is contrary to the principle held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India1. With the said contentions, the election petitioner sought the aforesaid reliefs. He also sought a consequential relief to declare him as duly elected Member of the subject constituency under Section - 84 of the Act, 1951.

5. The said election petition was opposed by respondent No.1 - returned candidate on the following grounds:

1. 2013 (6) ALD 68 (SC)

12. However, in the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 along with

i) The election petitioner has not pleaded as to acceptance of whose nomination among the contesting candidates has materially affected the results of the election insofar as the returned candidate is concerned;

12. However, in the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 along with

ii) The election petitioner sought consequential relief of declaring him duly elected member of the subject constituency under Section - 84 of the Act, 1951. To seek the said relief, the election petitioner has to plead the material facts under Section – 101

Click Here to Read the rest of this document