THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.296 of 2022 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt Justice P. Sree Sudha This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed in Election O.P. No. 2 of 2020 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’), filed under Section 71 to 80 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) r/w the A.P. Municipal Corporations (Conduct of Election of Members) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules’) for declaring the respondent No.4 as not eligible to contest as ward member/corporator at Ward No. 77, Jambagh Division, as per Section 21-B of GHMC Act, 1955; also to declare the election of respondent No.4 as null and void in view of Section 79(2)(d) of the GHMC Act, 1955 with a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to recount the total votes polled at ward No.77 in the presence of appellant and respondent No.4.

2. The Appellant herein is the petitioner in the aforesaid Election O.P. No.2 of 2020 filed under Section 71 to 80 of Act, 1955.

Case of the Appellant:

3. The case of the appellant in brief is that, he had contested in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Elections, 2020 held on 01.12.2020 for Ward No. 77, for the post of ward member/corporator from All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen, (A.I.M.I.M.) political party along with the respondents Nos.4 to 16.

4. The appellant contended that, in the underlying election affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No. 2, he had declared that he got two dependents other than spouse, which was challenged by him in the aforesaid Election O.P.

5. It is further case of the appellant that, the respondent No.4 has suppressed the material facts before the respondent No.2 about the fact that he having three children i.e. one male child namely Mr. Aakash Jaiswal born on 13.02.1987, and two female children viz., Ms. Aakriti Jaiswal born on 09.01.1990, and Ms. Srijitha Jaiswal born on 14.04.1996 which is in violation of Section 21-B of the Act, therefore he shall not be liable for continuing to be a member of the Ward and to be disqualified.

6. The appellant contended that, the respondent No.4 intentionally and wantonly suppressed the fact about of he having the three children in order to get elected, thereby, the election of the respondent No 4 is liable to be declared as void under Section 79 (2) (d) of the Act.

7. Appellant also contends that, he seriously apprehends that the counting of the votes was done in most partial manner and when same was questioned before the respondent No.2, respondent authorities failed to accede to the request for recounting and proceeded to declare the respondent No. 4 as returned candidate.

Case of the Respondent No.2:

8. It is the case of the respondent authorities, that the respondent No.2 has acted in a fair and transparent manner as the entire counting process was done under CCTV surveillance and conducted the election without deviating from any Rules and guidelines as given by the respondent No.1.

9. It is contented on behalf of the respondent No.2 that, the appellant has never raised any objection regarding dis- qualification of any of the contesting candidate during the election process till the announcement of results. It is also contended that the copies of the nomination papers filed by each candidate were displayed on the notice board in the office of the respondent No.2 and the same were also uploaded in the TSEC website. And no objection was made either by the appellant or his election agent at the time of nominations or requested the respondent No.2 to examine any nomination paper of respondent No.4.

Case of the Respondent No.4:

10. The case of respondent No.4 is that, the appellant has approached the Court with unclean hands, as he has two election ID cards, and a PAN card which shows different date of birth that po