IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
+ WRIT PETITION No.22334 OF 2021
% Delivered on: 18-10-2021
Between:
# Kantekar Madhumohan, .. Petitioner
Vs.
$ The Municipal Election Authority,
rep. by its Commissioner & Director,
Municipal Administration, Saifabad, Hyderabad,
State of Telangana and others .. Respondents
! For Petitioner : Sri A.Prabhakar Rao,
^ For Respondent No.1 : Lr.Govt.Pleader for MA&UD,
For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Sri P.Sudheer Rao,
Lr.Standng Counsel
for Telangana State Election
Commission
For Respondent Nos.5 and 7 : Sri N.Praveen Kumar,
Lr.Standing Counsel for
Municipality
For Respondent No.6 : Sri M.Rajender Reddy,
Lr.Counsel
For Respondent No.8 to 12 : Sri Gokul Rama Rao,
Lr.Counsel
< Gist
:
> Head Note
? Cases Referred :
1. (2004) 3 ALT 788 (DB)
2
. (2003) 5 ALT 741
3
. (1984) 3 SCC 339
4. (2020) 10 SCC 192
5
. (2011) 11 SCC 786
6
. AIR 1992 SCC 164
7
. 1998(5) ALD 361
8
. 2008 (2) ALT 22
9
. 2003(5) ALD 231
1
0. 2004(4) ALT 197
1
1. (2005) 4 SCC 480
1
2. 2018(1) ALD 33
2
KL,J
W.P.No.22334 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.22334 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 02.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.789 of 2021 in EOP No.124 of 2020 by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar - cum - Election Tribunal constituted under Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act') allowing the amendment to the said Election Petition, as illegal and contrary to the Telangana Municipalities (Election Petitions) Rules, 2020 (for short, 'the Rules') issued in G.O.Ms.No.30 Municipal Administration and Urban Development(MA) Department, dated 11.02.2020 and to set aside the same.
2. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Learned Govt.Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for Respondent No.1, Sri P.Sudheer Rao, learned standing counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned standing counsel for Respondent Nos.R.5 and 7, Sri M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent No.6, and Sri Gokul Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.8 to 12 and perused the record.
3. FACTS OF THE CASE
i) The Respondent Nos.8 to 12 have filed the subject Election Petition under Rule 3 of the Rules, to declare action of the 7th Respondent in allowing the 6th Respondent herein to be ex-officio Member of 3 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 Thukkuguda Municipal Council, as illegal; to declare participation of the 6th Respondent herein in the election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council, as void and illegal; to declare the election of the Returned Candidates, Vice Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council i.e. 5th Respondent herein, as void; to declare the election of Vice Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council whole as void and order for fresh election.
ii) The Petitioner herein/the 5th Respondent therein had filed counter in the said Election Petition. Thereafter, the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.789 of 2021 in E.OP No.124 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short, 'the CPC') before the Election Tribunal, seeking permission of the Tribunal, to delete Paragraph No.5 in the Prayer in Election Petition in toto and substitute with "to declare that the second highest votes secured candidate is the elected candidate as Chair person of Tukkuguda Municipality".
iii) The said petition vide I.A.No.789 of 2021 was filed on the ground that the amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature and the same is in accordance with the pleadings, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents therein and by virtue of the amendment, the nature of the Election Petition will not change.
iv) The Petitioner herein opposed the said I.A.No.789 of 2021 on the ground that the Election Tribunal does not have the power to entertain an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and the Election 4 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 Tribunal has to enquire into Election Petitions by following the procedure laid down under the Act and the amendment would change the nature of the very Election Petition itself.
v) The Election Tribunal had allowed the said I.A.No.789 of 2021 holding that the amendment sought by the Petitioners therein is only clarificatory does not change the nature of the dispute or the cause of action and no new case was introduced and such amendment would cause no prejudice to the Respondents.
4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
i) The Election Tribunal, while dealing with the Election Petition filed under Rule 3 of the Rules, has to follow the procedure laid down under the Rules, while conducting enquiry in Election Petition.
ii) Rule 10 of the Rules, deals with the power of Election Tribunal and as per the same, the Election Tribunal shall have the power which is vested in a Court under the CPC, and shall be deemed to be a civil Court while trying a suit in respect of the matters specifically mentioned therein. Therefore, except the said matter, the Election Tribunal cannot invoke the other powers under the CPC including entertaining Applications under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
iii) The Petitioners in the Election Petition have not made all the contesting candidates as parties to the Election Petition by names.
iv) Allowing the amendment would change the nature of the very Election Petition which is not permissible under law. 5
KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021
v) As per the Rules, the Election Petition has to be filed within 30 days from the date of declaration of result of election and the present amendment is not permissible as it is beyond the said limitation period.
vi) Reliance was placed on the principle laid down in Kummari Ramulu Vs. Gangaram Penta Reddy1, Chaluvadi Hanumayamma Vs. Sandrapati Jainabee2, Rajender Singh Vs. Smt. Usha Rani3, Muniraju Gowda P.M. Vs. Munirathna4, Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P.Joshi5 and K.D.Deshmukh Vs. Amritlal Jayaswal6,
vii) The Election Tribunal, without considering the said contentions and the principles laid down in the above said judgments, has erroneously allowed the petition in I.A.No.789 of 2021 filed to amend the Election Petition.
viii) Therefore, with the said contentions, he sought to set aside the impugned order.
5. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESOPNDENT NOs.8 TO 12
i) The amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature. There is no change in the nature of the Election Petition by the amendment.
ii) No prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner herein.
iii) Rule 3 of the Rules, applies to the Election Petition but not to an amendment application. Therefore, Rule 3 of the Rules cannot be pressed into service.
1 (2004) 3 ALT 788 (DB) 2 (2003) 5 ALT 741 3 (1984) 3 SCC 339 4 (2020) 10 SCC 192 5 (2011) 11 SCC 786 6 AIR 1992 SCC 164 6 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021
iv) The amendment sought is only a consequential relief but the cause of action and the main prayer in the Election Petition remains the same.
v) The Court below considered all the said aspects, also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and allowed the said application.
vi) The impugned order is a reasoned order and therefore, there is no error in it.
vii) With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for Respondent No.1, Sri M.Rajender Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.6 and 7 and Sri Gaddam Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 adopted the arguments of Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner herein. Sri P.Sudheer Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that the 2nd Respondent is only a formal party, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th Respondent would submit that the 5th Respondent is also a formal party.
7. In view of the above said submissions, the issues that fall for consideration before this Court are as follows:-
1) Whether the Election Tribunal has the power to invoke procedure laid down under the CPC to its entirety or only to the aspects which are specifically mentioned under Rule 10 of the Rules?
and 7 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021
2) Whether the impugned order suffers from any irregularity?
8. CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT
i) The Government of Telangana, vide G.O.Ms.No.30 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA) Department, dated 11.02.2020 invoking powers under Section 238(1) read with Section 233 of the Act and in supersession of the Telangana Municipalities (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1967 issued in G.O.Ms.No.1118, Municipal Administration, dated 17.08.1967, made the Rules relating to the disposal of Election Petitions for any election held under the said Act.
ii) Rule 3 of the said Rules, deals with filing of the Election Petition. As per the said Rule, the Election Petition shall be presented within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election.
iii) Rule 9 of the Rules deals with the procedure before Election Tribunal which is relevant and extracted below:-
Rule 9: Procedure before the Election Tribunal:-
(1) The Election Tribunal shall, as soon as may be, cause a copy of the petition to be served on each Respondent and the Returning Officer appointed at the time of such election and the District Election Authority. Copies shall also be affixed on the notice boards of the Election Tribunal and of the concerned municipal office. Every election, petition shall be inquired into by the Election Tribunal as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
(2) It shall be necessary for the Election Tribunal to make a memorandum of the substances of the evidence of any witness examined by it.
Provided that the Election Tribunal shall have the discretion to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine any witness if it is of the opinion that his evidence is not material for the decision of the petition or that the party tendering such evidence is doing so on frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the proceedings.8
KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021
3) The provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall subject to the provisions of these Rules be deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition.
4) The Election Tribunal shall dismiss an Election Petition which does not comply with these Rules;
Provided that any candidate not included as a Respondent shall upon an application made to the Election Tribunal within fourteen days after affixture of the petition on the notice board of the Election Tribunal as referred in sub-rule(1) shall be entitled to be added as a Respondent on furnishing the security deposit referred in Rule(8).
iv) Rule 10 of the Rules deals with the power of Election Tribunal which is relevant and is extracted below:-
The Election Tribunal shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and shall be deemed to be a civil Court while trying a suit in respect of the following matters:-
a) discovery and inspection;
b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and requiring the Petitioner for deposit of their expenses;
c) compelling the production of documents;
d) examining witness on oath;
e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit;
f) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses; and
g) summon and examine suo-motu any person whose evidence appears to it to be material;
v) Rule 20 of the said Rules, which is extracted as follows:-
"Grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected; if any person who has filed a petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claims a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and the election Tribunal is of opinion:-
a) that in fact the Petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes; or
b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices, the Petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes;9
KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 The Election Tribunal shall, after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void, declare the Petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected.
9. As stated above, the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 herein have filed the above said Election Petition vide EOP No.124 of 2020, to declare action of the 7th Respondent in allowing the 6th Respondent herein to be ex-
officio Member of Thukkuguda Municipal Council, as illegal; to declare participation of the 6th Respondent herein in the election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council, as void and illegal; to declare the election of the Returned Candidates, Vice Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council i.e. 5th Respondent herein as void; to declare the election of Vice Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council whole as void and order for a fresh election.
10. An application vide I.A.No.789 of 2021 in E.OP No.124 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, was filed seeking permission of the Election Tribunal, to delete Paragraph No.5 in the Prayer of the Election Petition in toto and substitute with "to declare that the second highest votes secured candidate is the elected candidate as Chairperson of Tukkuguda Municipality".
11. As stated above, Rule 9 of the Rules deal with the Procedure before the Election Tribunal and as per the same, every Election Petition shall be inquired into by the Election Tribunal 'as nearly as may be' in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the CPC. As per Rule 10 of the Rules, the Election Tribunal shall have the powers vested in a Court under the CPC, and shall be deemed to be a civil 10 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 Court while trying a suit in respect of the matters mentioned as 'a' to 'g' therein.
12. Referring to the same, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Election Tribunal has to confine its powers only to the matters 'a' to 'g' of Rule 10 of the Rules, but cannot exercise its powers and entertain an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Election Tribunal cannot follow the procedure laid down in the CPC, in its entirety while trying an Election Petition.
13. The said issue is no longer res-integra. The said issue fell for consideration in C.Maniyamma Vs. Junior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, Dist.Mahaboobnagar7 wherein it was held that an Election Petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal 'as nearly as may be', in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the CPC. In the said case, the Court had permitted the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
14. In Kummari Ramulu (supra), while dealing with the petition of Sarpanch, this Court held that only certain powers of the Civil Court are conferred on the Election Tribunal, but not all powers and that the powers not mentioned in the Rules, cannot be exercised by the Election Tribunal. The Division Bench further held that the power to permit addition of a party after the period of limitation is such a power that can be exercised only when it is specifically conferred on the Tribunal and accordingly, the 7 1998(5) ALD 361 11 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 application filed seeking substitution of a party in place of the impleaded party was dismissed.
15. In Jambarthi Kasim @ Kashiram Vs. Bommidi Jagannatham8, while dealing with the Election Petition of Sarpanch under the Rules, it was held that when the provisions of the CPC are made applicable to certain limited aspects, and the Rules, stipulated the procedure as regards the other matters, the contention that the CPC in its entirety, applies to the proceedings initiated under the Rules, cannot be accepted.
16. In M.Ganganna Vs. A.Chitma Guravaiah9, this Court, while dealing with an Election Petition of a Sarpanch under the Rules, held that the said Rules postulate that every Election Petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal in accordance with the procedure applicable under the CPC and it is now well settled that all the subsequent amendments to CPC get incorporated into Rule 11 though the amendment to Order XVIII Rule 4 was not there when the Rules were made. While holding accordingly, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging an order of rejection passed by the Election Tribunal whereby an interlocutory application filed under Section 151 of the CPC praying the Election Tribunal to set aside the sworn affidavit of the 1st Respondent was rejected.
8 2008 (2) ALT 22 9 2003(5) ALD 231 12 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 17. In Smt.Lagudu Amiradha Vs. Smt. Gorrepotu
Chellayamma10, this Court held that Order XIV of the CPC is applicable to Election Petitions being tried by Election Tribunals and that settlement of issues or framing of points for consideration is an essential step in an enquiry of Election Petition for the reason that parties should know on what questions in controversy, necessary evidence may have to be let in.
18. In Kailash Vs. Nanhku11, the Apex Court, while dealing with the facts of the said case, held that election of the appellant therein to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council was under challenge as per Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. It was held that the power of the Court to extend time for filing of the written statement in an Election Petition is not circumscribed by Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and the proviso thereto, as amended. The High Court denied the prayer for extension of time as it felt that it had no power to do so as the High Court was bound by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC and the proviso thereto as amended. The Supreme Court considered the fact that the written statement was already on record and issued directions for its being taken on record, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the election Petitioner. Referring the said facts, the Apex Court held as under:-
"In case of conflict between the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Rules framed there under or the Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of the power conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution on the one hand, and the Rules of procedure contained in CPC on the other hand, the former shall prevail over the latter."
10
2004(4) ALT 197 11 (2005) 4 SCC 480 13 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 The Apex Court also placed reliance in an unreported decision in W.P.No.1145 of 1972 rendered by this Court on 19.10.1973, wherein, this Court held that the Tribunal was justified in invoking Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC and setting aside the order of dismissal of the Election Petition filed under the Act, before the Election Tribunal.
19. In Merugu Kousalya Vs.Thadakamalla Hima Bindu12, referring to the facts, principle laid down in all the above said judgments and also while examining the facts of the said case where the Court below dismissed the application filed by the Respondents therein seeking to set aside the ex parte order, held that if it is open to the Tribunal to set a Respondent ex parte for not filing a counter, the power to set aside the ex parte order also inheres in the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal, which has power to set the Respondent ex parte, will certainly have the power to entertain an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code. The Apex Court further held that the Tribunal was not justified in not invoking Order IX Rule 7 of the Code and in refusing to set aside the ex parte order.
20. In the said case, by referring the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Kailash (supra), it was held that there is no Rule which is in conflict with the provisions of the CPC. Therefore, the Election Tribunal can exercise the powers conferred on it under the said Act, in the absence of conflict with the CPC.
21. In Chaluvadi Hanumayamma (supra), the Petitioner therein had filed a petition to dismiss the Election Petition on the ground that the 12 2018(1) ALD 33 14 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 Election Petitioner miserably failed to mention the material facts which are to be stated as per Rule 3(2) of the Rules. The said decision is not applicable to the present case.
22. In Rajender Singh (supra), the Apex Court, while examining the facts of the said case wherein true copies mixed up with incorrect copies of petition, Respondent therein not obliged to select the correct copy out of the mixed lot, in the absence of the proof that the Respondent received the correct copy, benefit of doubt cannot be given to the Petitioner and that one page missing in the Election Petition but present in the copy, held that the Court cannot allow amendment of the petition, and further held that in Election Petition procedural requirements must be mandatorily complied with. The said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
23. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, it is relevant to note that as per Rule 9 of the Rules, every Election Petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal 'as nearly as may be' in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of the suits under the CPC. As per Rule 10 of the Rules, the Election Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil Court while trying a suit in respect of the matters mentioned as 'a' to 'g' as stated above. Thus, the said Rules do not contain any Rule which is 'in conflict' with the provisions of the C.P.C. The Apex Court in Kailash (supra) held that when there is no Rule which is 'in conflict' with the provisions of the C.P.C., the Election Tribunal can exercise power conferred by the Rules as well as the provisions of the CPC. 15
KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021
24. In the present case also, the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 herein have filed the above said petition vide I.A.No.789 of 2021 in EOP No.124 of 2020 before the Court below under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC before the Election Tribunal, seeking permission of the Tribunal, to bring in the above mentioned amendments. The main prayer seeking to declare the election of Vice Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council is intact. There is no change in the nature of the main Election Petition by virtue of allowing the said amendment. Therefore, according to this Court, the procedure laid down under Rules, 2018 is not 'in conflict' with the provisions of the CPC. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the Election Tribunal cannot exercise its powers under CPC to its entirety while enquiring into the Election Petition is not sustainable.
25. It is relevant to note that as per Rule 20 of the Rules, if any person who has filed a petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claims a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and the election Tribunal is of opinion that in fact the Petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes or that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices, the Petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes, the Election Tribunal shall, after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void, declare the Petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected.
16
KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021
26. In fact, according to this Court, the amendment sought by the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 herein is in consonance with Rule 20 of the Rules. Therefore, there is no change in the nature of the Election Petition by allowing the amendment application. In view of the same, the contention of the Petitioner that the Court below has erred in allowing the amendment application which changes the nature of the main Election Petition, is not sustainable.
27. As discussed supra, this Court is of the view that there is no error much less patent error committed by the Election Tribunal while allowing the application filed by the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 herein since exercise of power under the CPC, is not in conflict with the Rules and in fact, the Court below has considered the Rule that it has to enquire into the Election Petition 'as nearly as may be' in accordance with the CPC to the trial of the suits.
28. It is relevant to note that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Kailash (supra) is not considered by the Division Bench in Kummari Ramulu (supra). Therefore, I agree with this Court on the principle laid down in Merugu Kousalya (supra). Therefore, the principle laid down in Kummari Ramulu (supra) is not applicable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kailash (supra).
29. The Apex Court in Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra), by referring the principle laid down in Kailash (supra) and other judgments, held that the applicability of the procedure prescribed in CPC is circumscribed by two riders; firstly, the procedure prescribed in CPC is 17 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 applicable only 'as nearly as may be', and secondly, CPC would give way to any provisions of the Act or any Rules made there under. Therefore, the procedure prescribed in CPC applies to election trial with flexibility and only as guidelines.
30. In Muniraju Gowda P.M. (supra), the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, while dealing with an Election Petition under the Representation of the People Act and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka allowing the petitions filed by the Petitioners i) striking out the pleadings, ii) rejection of the Election Petition on the ground of lack of substratum and iii) striking out prayer in the Election Petition and held that the election Petitioner cannot be allowed to suddenly wake up to the reality of lack of pleading of material fats, relating to his rights in terms of Section 101 of the Act, after more than 18 months of the filing of the Election Petition. The same is also barred by limitation. Whereas, in the present case, the Election Petition was filed in time and the Respondent Nos.8 to 12/Election Petitioners have filed the present petition vide I.A.No.789 of 2021 seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Therefore, the said principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment is not applicable. Thus, the Petitioner herein cannot contend that the present interlocutory application vide I.A.No.789 of 2021 filed by Respondent Nos.8 to 12 seeking amendment is barred by limitation.
31. In K.D.Deshmukh (supra), while dealing with an amendment application which was totally a new ground falling under Section 100(1)(d) of the Act, and held that the same is not permissible and it is 18 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 beyond limitation. Therefore, the facts therein are different to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the said principle is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
32. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, the only aspect which has to be considered by the Election Tribunal is that whether the procedure laid down under the Rules is in conflict with the provisions of the C.P.C. Rule 9 of the Rules specifically refers that every Election Petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal 'as nearly as may be' in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of the suits under C.P.C. Therefore, According to this Court, the Court below has not committed any error much less patent while allowing the amendment petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Court below has considered all the aspects including the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court and also the procedure laid down under the Rules and allowed the said application vide I.A.No.789 of 2021 filed by the Respondent Nos.8 to 10. According to this Court, it is a reasoned and well founded order.
33. As discussed supra, as per Rule 3 of the Rules, an Election Petition shall be instituted within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. In the present case, the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 have filed the present Election Petition within the 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. The Court below held that the said limitation would only apply to filing of Election Petition and not to filing 19 KL,J W.P.No.22334 of 2021 of any other application including application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
34. As discussed supra, the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 have filed the Election Petition to declare the elections to the Vice-Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council as illegal. The said relief is intact. There is no change to the said relief by virtue of allowing the amendment application. By virtue of amendment, the Respondent Nos.8 to 12 are seeking to declare the candidate who secured the second highest votes as Vice-Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council. Therefore, there is no change to the nature of the very Election Petition itself.
35. Viewed from any angle, the Petitioner fails to establish any ground to set aside the impugned order. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
CONCLUSION:
36. In the Result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:18.10.2021 Vvr