THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

ELECTION PETITION No.01 of 2020

ORDER:

This petition is filed by the election petitioner herein under

Section 80, 80A, 81, 83, 84, 100(1)(d) and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the R.P.Act’) to declare the election of respondent No.1 as returned candidate for 089-Huzur Nagar Constituency during Bye-elections to the Legislative Assembly held on 21.10.2019 as void and consequently to declare the petitioner as returned candidate for

089-Huzur Nagar Constituency.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that a notification dated 23.09.2019 for bye-election to elect the legislative member to the Telangana State Legislative Assembly-2019 for 089 Assembly Constituency was published under Section 150(1), 30 and 56 of the R.P. Act in the Telangana Gazette No.38; and that in pursuance of the said notification, the petitioner contested the

said election as candidate set up by Indian National Congress.

3. The petitioner contended that the polling was conducted on 21.10.2019 and counting of votes took place on 24.10.2019

wherein the returning officer announced the results declaring the respondent No.1 as returned candidate who won the election by a margin of 43,358 votes.

4. Further it is submitted that, at the time of filing nomination, each of the contestant under Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") is required to furnish, inter alia, an affidavit in Form 26 disclosing: (i) criminal antecedents (ii) the assets and liabilities and sources of income of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependents and (iii) educational qualifications of the candidate. However, on scrutiny of the Form 26 affidavit submitted by respondent No.1 before the respondent No. 30, indicates that several vital facts have been suppressed.

5. Petitioner contends that while in Part-A, Item No. 7 of the Form 26 affidavit, under the head 'Details of Movable Assets', in Sl. No. (iii), a contestant is required to furnish "details of investments in bonds, debentures/shares and units in companies/mutual funds and others and the amount", wherein the respondent No. 1 has stated ‘NIL’, however, as per the authentic information from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the respondent No.1 and his spouse held shares in several companies which were not disclosed in the Form 26 and has thus, grossly undervalued the properties by misrepresenting and making incorrect disclosure of the actual value of the assets and liabilities held by him and his spouse.

6. Petitioner also contends that as per the rules, the respondent No.1, in Form 26 Affidavit in Part-B, Item No. 7, under the head 'Details of Immovable Assets', is required to disclose details of agricultural and non-agricultural land held by him or his spouse in Sl. No. (i) and (ii), however omitted to disclose that he owns land in Sy No. 350/E, Plot No.26 to an extent of 218 Sq Yards and Sy No. 351/E, Plot No.27 to an extent of 220 Sq Yards and totally admeasuring 438 Sq Yards T.B.Palem Village, Kodad Mandal.

7. Petitioner further contends that in Form 26 affidavit, in Part-B, Item No.7 in Sl No. (iii), a contestant is required to disclose details of commercial buildings held by him/his spouse/HUF/his dependents at current market value, the respondent No. 1 had undervalued the said prospects and thus made a misrepresentation and incorrect disclosure.

8. It is further contended by the Petitioner that under the Item No.7, Part-A of Form 26 Affidavit a contestant is required to disclose details of the deposits in bank accounts, the respondent No.1 had disclosed ‘NIL’ for him, his spouse and dependents, while under Item No.8 the respondent No.1 disclosed that his wife has availed a home loan from VanCity Bank, Canada, wherein it is a precondition to avail such a loan is to have deposits with the bank which is also reflected from their website. 9. It is submitted that, the respondent No.1 by deliberately concealing the fac