Telangana High Court
Adluri Laxman Kumar, vs Eshwarkoppula, on 1 December, 2023
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
ELECTION PETITION No.12 OF 2019
ALONG WITH I.A.No.2 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for Election Petitioner and Mr. M.P. Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
2. As per the orders, dated 22.11.2019 passed by this Court in I.A. Nos.2 and 4 of 2019, the names of respondent Nos.11, 12 and 13 - Chief Election Commissioner, Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana and Returning Officer, respectively, were struck off from the array of respondents in the present Election Petition. As per the orders dated 25.10.2019 in I.A. No.3 of 2019, paper publications by way of substituted service were published in Local Edition of 'Business Standard' and District Edition of 'Andhra Jyothi' English and Telugu Daily Newspapers respectively in so far as respondent Nos.5, 7 and 14 are concerned. Despite the same, none appears on their behalf. Despite service of notice on respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9, none appears on their behalf. The notice sent to respondent No.10 returned un-served with an endorsement 'left without instruction'. Sending notice to the 2 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 address of respondent No.10, furnished by her is sufficient as per Section
- 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Therefore, there is no representation even on behalf of respondent No.10.
3. The Election Petitioner - Mr. Adluri Laxman Kumar filed the present Election Petition under Sections - 80, 80A, 81, 83, 84, 100 (1)
(d) and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking the following reliefs:-
i. to declare the election of respondent No.1 as Returned Candidate from 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency to the Legislative Assembly General Elections held on 17.12.2018 as illegal, null and void and set aside the same;
ii. to declare action of the Returning Officer declaring the election of respondent No.1 without counting and recounting at certain places the VVPAT slips available in all the EVMs used for in the election of Dharmapuri Assembly Constituency, Telangana State as violation of the procedure prescribed under the ROP Act, 1951 and Rules made thereunder and the same as a corrupt practice adopted 3 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 to favour respondent No.1 to declare him as winning candidate;
iii. to declare the petitioner as elected Member of Legislative Constituency Election Petitioner is elected as a Member of said Assembly Constituency after declaring the election of the Applicant, as void.
iv. to direct the officials including the Returning Officer to count or recount the VVPAT slips available in all the EVMs pertaining to the said election and declare the result.
v. to declare the election petitioner herein as duly elected from the said Assembly Constituency.
4. The case of the election petitioner is as under:
i) The Governor of the State of Telangana has, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article
- 174 of the Constitution of India, dissolved the Legislative Assembly of the State on 06.09.2018. A Notification under Section - 15 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1951') was issued by the Governor. Thereafter, the Election Commission of India vide Notification dated 12.11.2018 issued under Sections - 30 and 56 of the Act, 1951, announced the programme for 4 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 holding of Elections to the Assembly Constituencies including 022-
Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency. The details of notification, such as filing nomination papers, scrutiny of the same, withdrawal of nomination, date of polling and counting etc., are as under:
01. Filing of nomination papers 19.11.2018
02. Scrutiny of nomination papers 20.11.2018
03. Withdrawal of nomination papers 22.11.2018
04. Date of Polling 07.12.2018
05. Date of Counting of Votes 12.12.2018
ii) Pursuant to the said Notification, the election petitioner filed his nomination as a candidate set up by the Indian National Congress to 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency (hereinafter referred to 'subject constituency'). Respondent No.1 filed his nomination on behalf of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) to the subject constituency.
Respondent Nos.2 to 10 also contested on behalf of different political parties or as independent candidates, details of which are as under:
Sl.No. Name of the Candidate Name of the Party
01. Mr.Adluri Laxman Kumar INC
02. Eshwar Koppula TRS
03. Kannam Anjaiah BJP
04. Tadagonda Nagaraju BS
05. Duda Mahipal NBP
06. Mothe Naresh NIP
07. Raindar Maddela BLP
08. S. Vijaya Kumar IPBP
09. Sathpadi Pranay Kumar JSP
10. Kuntala Narsaiah IND
11. Buradagunta Sangha Mithra IND 5 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
iii) The polling was conducted by using Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) as contemplated under Rule - 49A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short 'Rules, 1961'). There are 269 Polling Stations in the subject constituency. As per the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) Printers were introduced by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for arresting any malpractice in the process of counting of votes.
iv) In the subject constituency, 269 EVMs were employed for casting votes. The polling was concluded on 07.12.2018. Rule - 49S of the Rules, 1961 requires that the Polling Officer at the close of the Poll prepares an account of votes recorded in Form - 17C and enclose it in separate cover with the words 'Account of Votes recorded' subscribed thereon and furnish authenticated copy of the same to every polling agent.
v) Dr.V.R.K. College of Engineering and Technology, Nookapally Village, Mallial Mandal, Jagityal District (for short 'Engineering College'), was a place notified for preservation of the EVMs and for counting of votes. Rule - 49V of the Rules, 1961 and Memo of ECI bearing NO.F-51/8/7/2018 - EMPS dated 13.11.2018 contemplates that the EVMs shall be transmitted to the notified place for 6 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 preservation and the same shall be secured in Storage/Warehouse by a double lock system. But, contrary to the said provisions, the EVMs were transmitted to the Junior College, Dharmapuri on 07.12.2018 instead of the Engineering and Technology. Only on the next day i.e., 08.12.2018, the EVMs were taken to the said Engineering College and the same was admitted by the Returning Officer as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act'). Therefore, the said act was done with a mala fide intention to manipulate and tamper the EVMs. The election petitioner and his agents were protested, but in vain. Further, the Strong Room where the EVMs kept were not properly locked and sealed as per the prescribed procedure which may lead to serious suspicion.
vi) On conclusion of Polling i.e., 07.12.2018, the election petitioner and his Agents received various complaints from their polling agents about non-furnishing of Form - 17C by the respective Polling Officers, more particularly, Polling Station Nos.77, 97, 120, 138, 164, 196, 218, 227, 235 and 237. Since the election petitioner and his Agents did not have any data with reference to number of votes polled in the aforesaid Polling Stations, they could not raise any objection with regard to the counting of aforesaid counting units, when the counting was taken 7 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 up on 11.12.2018. Despite seeking such information under RTI Act, the same was not furnished.
vii) As per Hand Book of Procedure, for the Returning Officers published by the ECI, the Returning Officer is required to submit voter turnout report to the Chief Election Officer (CEO) on conclusion of poll. The said report titled as Report No.22 submitted by the Returning Officer of the subject constituency to the CEO of Telangana dated 08.12.2018 shows that the total voters turn out in respect of all 269 Polling Stations was 1,65,209 votes and percentage of voting was 79.96%.
viii) Rule - 66A of the Rules, 1961 provides for counting of votes, where EVMs have been used, while Rule - 56C provides for counting of votes. After counting of votes on 11.12.2018, the Returning Officer (RO) announced the results, declaring respondent No.1 as Returned Candidate (RC) and he won the election by a margin of 441 Votes over the election petitioner herein. The RO issued Final Result Sheet (FRS) in Form - 20 as provided under Rule - 56C (2) (c) of the Rules, 1961. The RO issued certificate of election in Form - 22 as provided under Rule - 66 of the Rules, 1961 declaring respondent No.1 herein as RC. 8
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
ix) As per the Final Result Sheet (FRS) issued in Form - 20, the candidates are shown to have been polled the following Votes:
Sl.No. Name of the Candidate Number of Votes Polled
01. Mr.Adluri Laxman Kumar 70,138
02. Eshwar Koppula 70,579
03. Kannam Anjaiah 5,272
04. Tadagonda Nagaraju 1,063 05. Duda Mahipal 291 06. Mothe Naresh 300 07. Raindar Maddela 302 08. S. Vijaya Kumar 294 09. Sathpadi Pranay Kumar 535
10. Kuntala Narsaiah 13,114
11. Buradagunta Sangha Mithra 1,259
x) Based on the FRS issued by the RO of all the Polling Constituencies in Form - 20, the CEO issued Notification No.380/TS-
LA/2018 on 12.12.2018 under Section - 73 of the Act, 1951 declaring the names of the Members elected to the constituencies in the Telangana State Legislative Assembly. As per the said Notification, respondent No.1 was declared as the RC from the subject constituency.
xi) After the results were announced, it was noticed that there was a difference between the total votes polled as per Data/Information furnished by the RO on 08.12.2018 in his report No.22 vide E/254/2018 and the total votes recorded in the EVMs as per the FRS. Suspecting the foul play and tampering of the EVMs, the election petitioner submitted 9 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 an application to the RO to count the VVPAT slips on 11.12.2018, but the same was refused.
xii) In order to confirm the discrepancy, the election petitioner filed an application to the RO under RTI Act seeking to furnish true copy of Report No.22. On 20.12.2018, the RO furnished the same. As per the said report also, the total number of votes polled were shown as 1,65,341 and the percentage of votes as 80.02%. The report No.22 furnished to the petitioner was made up to match the entries made in the FRS prepared in Form - 20.
xiii) After cross-verification of the information obtained under RTI Act with the information earlier furnished under Report No.22, the following irregularities were noticed in recording counting of votes:
Polling Report No.22 Report No.22 obtained Result Sheet Difference Station No. (Votes Polled) u/RTI (Votes Polled) Form -20 of votes 77 412 413 413 1(+) 97 928 971 971 43(+) 120 643 633 633 10(-) 138 878 875 875 3(-) 164 736 746 746 10(+) 196 528 526 526 2(+) 218 386 396 396 10(+) 227 571 753 753 182(+) 235 575 475 475 100(-) 237 600 601 601 1(+)
xiv) It is manifest from the above that the EVMs were tampered and hacked by using corrupt practices at the instance of respondent No.1 10 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 in order to see that he is declared as elected candidate though the election petitioner was polled majority votes. Hence, the election petition is filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
5. Respondent No.1 - Returned Candidate filed his counter refuting the allegations levelled against him. He further contended as under:
i) The election petitioner has not mentioned the material facts on which he relied as mandated under Section - 83 (1) (a) of the Act, 1951.
He has also not set forth the full particulars of corrupt practice as mandated by Section - 81 (1) (b) of the Act, 1951. He has not verified the Election Petition as mandated by Section - 83 (1) (c) of the Act, 1951. The election petitioner has not filed the affidavit in Form - 25 as required under Rule - 94A of the Rules, 1961 and the proviso to Section
- 100 (1) of the Act, 1951. Thus, the Election Petition is not in accordance with the provisions of Section - 83 (1) of the Act, 1951 and, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.
ii) The election petitioner has not challenged the declaration of election in Form-21C issued under Rule - 64 of the Rules, 1961 and, therefore, he is not entitled to seek the relief in the present Election Petition.
11
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
iii) The election petitioner has not filed any material to show that the Engineering College was notified for preservation of EVMS and counting of Votes. The allegation of the election petitioner that the EVMs were first transmitted to the Junior College on 07.12.2018 and then transmitted to the Engineering College on 08.12.2018 with a mala fide intention to manipulate and tamper the EVMs is false and it is only the assumption of the election petitioner. The election petitioner has not pleaded the material facts relation to the person who had the mala fide intention, the time, date and the names of persons and the manner in which the EVMs were tampered.
iv) The election petitioner has not mentioned as to the manner of protest and to whom and when such protest was made and the names of his Agents etc.
v) The election petitioner has not mentioned the procedure to be followed in locking and sealing the strong room. In fact, the agents of the election petitioner and respondent No.1 watched the place of strong room and satisfied that nothing untoward incident would happen. Further, the lock and seals of the strong room were opened and the seals of the EVMs were inspected by the election petitioner and his Agents 12 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 before counting started. If there was any sort of tampering takes place, the election petitioner and his agents ought to have objected then and there.
vi) No complaints of whatsoever have ever been received from any Polling Agent with regard to non-furnishing Form - 17C by the respective Polling Officers in respect of Polling Station Nos.77, 97 120, 138, 164, 196, 218, 227, 235 and 237. The said allegation was made only after receipt of report No.22 and the result sheet.
vii) Respondent No.13 after counting of votes on 11.12.2018, announced the results by declaring respondent No.1 as returned candidate having won the elections by margin of 441 votes over the election petitioner. Respondent No.1 could have secured more votes but for the confusion in the mind of the Voters as regards the Symbol allotted to respondent No.9 i.e., Truck, which resembles as Car with the features and, therefore, though respondent No.9 contested as an Independent Candidate, got 13,114 Votes, which in the normal way if there was no confusion relating to the similarities in the Symbols of the Car and Truck, the said votes would have come to respondent No.1. 13
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
viii) The election petitioner has not mentioned as to what is the difference of votes between the report No.22 and the FRS. In fact, the difference is only 132 votes which will not materially affect the results.
ix) The election petitioner has not complained to the Election Observer, the CEO or Election Commission except filing a copy of application alleged to have submitted to the RO. Neither the election petitioner, nor his agents made any complaint about the counting process. The application dated 11.12.2018 was only introduced as the same has not seen the light of the day till the election petition was filed. In fact, it does not make out any legally sustainable grounds for counting of votes and VVPAT slips in respect of all the 269 Polling Stations. Further, the agents of the Election Petition were present at every EVM counting and they never raised any objection. The election petitioner has not even mentioned the names of the Officials who have played mischief and involved in corrupt practices and the manner in which the mischief was played and involved in corrupt practices.
x) The safe custody of the EVMs was under the supervision of the election petitioner and his Agents as well as respondent No.1, who put their signatures on the locks and the police picket, was fixed all-around 14 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 the area and the election petitioner himself while removing the locks had satisfied by inspecting the premises. Though there is no allegation that the difference of 136 votes (it ought to be 132 votes) between report No.22 and the FRS were polled in favour of respondent No.1 by tampering the EVMs and even after they are deducted from the majority of 441 votes, still respondent No.1 got majority of 305 votes. Thus, there is no cause of action to file the present Election Petition. The prayer sought by the election petitioner is contrary to the facts.
xi) The elections were conducted fairly and transparently without any irregularity under the observation of an Election Observer, who is an IAS Officer appointed by the Election Commission of India for the subject constituency. An EVM is designed with two units, the control unit and the balloting unit. They were joined together by a cable. The control unit of the EVM is kept with the PO or the Polling Officer. The balloting unit is kept within the voting compartment for electors to cast their votes. This is done to ensure that the Polling Officer verifies voter identity. With the EVM, instead of issuing a ballot paper, the Polling Officer will press the ballot button which enables the voter to cast the vote. A list of candidates' names and symbols will be available on the machine with a blue button next to it. The voter can press the button 15 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 next to the candidate's name and symbol they wish to vote for. VVPAT allows voters to verify their votes are cast as intended and this system can serve as an additional barrier to changing or destroying votes. The VVPAT includes a direct recording electronic voting system (DRE) to assure voters that their votes have been recorded as intended.
xii) Before commencement of poll, the PO demonstrates to the Polling Agents present that there are no hidden votes already recorded in the machine by pressing the result button. Thereafter, he conducts a mock poll with at least 50 votes in the presence of the polling agents and tallies with the electronic result stored in the Central Unit (CU) to the polling agents to satisfy them that the result shown is strictly according to the choice recorded by them. Thereafter, the PO will press the clear button to clear the result of the mock poll before commencing the actual poll. Then, the PO again shows to polling agents by pressing 'Total' button that it shows '0' and then he seals the Control Unit before starting actual poll in the presence of polling agents. The VVPAT slips are counted before entering the total numbers of votes polled in the polling station.
xiii) After verification of EVMs and also after satisfaction with mock poll by the polling agents, the PO has commenced the actual poll. 16
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 At the end of the poll, the PO closed the poll and disconnected the ballot unit from control unit of EVM to prevent tampering of EVM and sealed by affixing labels, which bears the signatures of polling agents in every polling station. All the polling agents of all polling stations of subject constituency did not raise any objection about mode of conducting and manner of conducting the elections as it was done in a peaceful manner as per the Rules, 1961. Thereafter, all the EVMs and VVPATs of the subject constituency LAC, Jagtial LAC and Korutla LAC of Jagtial District were stored in respective safe and strong rooms in the Engineering College and sealed the strong rooms by affixing labels on doors with seal and signatures of the Election Authority and also sealed the lock of said room which is completely under CCTV Surveillance and also under police security.
xiv) On the date of counting, respondent No.1 and his agent, Mr. K. Venkateshwar Rao and the election petitioner and other contesting candidates along with their respective counting agents were present at the counting hall in Engineering College. The RO of subject constituency and an Election Observer and also the District Election Authority allowed them inside the counting hall after verification their I.D. Cards. Thereafter, the RO and an Election Observer allowed all the 17 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 contesting candidates including the election petitioner and also their agents to the strong room, where EVMs and VVPATs were stores, where they have observed the seal labels on the strong room door and also its lock and after their satisfaction only, the strong room was opened in their presence which was fully video-graphed by the Election Authority. After concluding all rounds of counting including the postal ballots, respondent No.1 secured 441 more votes than the election petitioner. Then the election petitioner also requested the RO to count VVPAT slips of four polling stations of his choice. Accordingly, RO counted VVPAT slips of four polling stations No.17, 47, 92 and 174 before the election petitioner and his agents under the observation of an Election Observer, wherein the VVPAT slips were tallied with the votes polled in EVMs. The election petitioner was also fully satisfied after the recounting of the said VVPAT slips which were tallied with the polled votes in EVM and, as such, the election agent of the petitioner, Mr. NVS Lalith Babu, put his signatures on the proceedings of Returning Officer by accepting counting of VVPATs. Thereafter, the RO declared the election result wherein respondent No.1 was declared as elected candidate.
xv) In view of the above, there were no irregularities, nor malpractices committed in declaring respondent No.1 as elected 18 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 candidate of the subject constituency and, as such, respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the election petition with exemplary costs.
6. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings and the draft issues filed by both the learned counsel for the election petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1, this Court has framed fourteen (14) issues on 21.09.2022. However, on hearing both learned counsel for the election petitioner and respondent No.1 - Returned Candidate, the following issues are re-settled.
i) Whether the result of the election, concerning the Returned Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 has been materially affected?
ii) Whether the difference of 136 votes between Report No.22 furnished on 08.12.2018 and the Report furnished on 20.12.2018 would materially affect the result of the election of respondent No.1?"
iii) Whether any corrupt practice has been committed by the Returned Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 or his Election Agent or by any other person with the consent of respondent No.1 or his election Agent?
iv) Whether the difference of votes between Report No.22 and Final Result Sheet in Form - 20 and even it is a human error, can be sufficient to order recount of printed paper 19 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 slips/VVPAT slips in the EVMs pertaining to Dharmapuri Assembly Constituency?
v) Whether the election of the Returned Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 can be declared to be void? If so, whether the petitioner can be declared to have been duly elected from 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency to the Legislative Assembly General Elections held on 07.12.2018?
vi) Whether the election of the returned candidate respondent No.1 can be declared as null and void without challenging the declaration of the result of election in Form - 21C under Rule 64 read with Section 66 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
vii) Whether the election of the 1st respondent can be declared as null and void, when the contents of the election petition and relief sought do not attract the provisions of Section 100(1) (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
viii) Whether the strong room at Junior College, Dharmapuri, is not properly locked and sealed, which resulted in tampering of EVMs and the same amounts to corrupt practices?
ix) Whether counting or recounting of VVPATs slips of all polling booths are permissible under election rules?
x) Whether the petitioner is entitled for costs? and xi) To What relief? 20 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
7. Vide order dated 12.09.2022, this Court appointed Mr. S.V.V. Natha Reddy, Retired District Judge, as Commissioner, to record the evidence of parties. Pursuant to the same, the learned Commissioner recorded the evidence of the election petitioner as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8 documents. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B11 documents, while the Returning Officer of 022-Dharmapuri (SC) LAC was examined as Court Witness i.e., CW.1 and got marked Exs.X1 to X10 documents. However, vide orders dated
21.06.2023 in I.A. No.9 of 2023, this Court eschewed the evidence of PW.2 and he has to be treated as CW.1. Pursuant to the said orders, the learned Commissioner treating PW.1 as CW.1 recorded his evidence and marked Exs.X1 to X10 documents. Vide order dated 07.07.2023, this Court marked the entire report of the Election Commission of India as Ex.C1.
8. During the course of hearing, Mr. M.P. Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the Returned Candidate contended that the election petitioner did not submit the present election petition in accordance with the procedure laid down under law.
21
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
9. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that Section - 81 of the Act, 1951 deals with presentation of election petitions. It is relevant and the same is extracted below:
"81. Presentation of petitions.--
(1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.
Explanation.--In this sub-section, "elector" means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not.
[***] Omitted by Act 47 of 1966 (3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition."
22
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
10. In G.V. Sreerama Reddy v. Returning Officer 1, the Apex Court held as follows:
"14. A close look at Section 81 reveals that the two remaining sub-sections after the amendment introduced by Act 47 of 1966 i.e. (1) and (3) deal with two distinct, but interrelated issues. Sub-section (1) deals with the necessary requirements of any petition challenging an election, and sub-section (3) deals with additional requirements as to the petition presented. Sub-section (1) has five components:
(i) the qualification of the petitioner i.e. he/she must be either "a candidate at such election" or an "elector";
(ii) the petition must be presented "by" the petitioner;
(iii) the petition must be based "on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101;
(iv) it must be presented in the High Court; and
(v) it must be presented within 45 days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.
Therefore, all these five requirements are extremely specific and clear. This inference is further 1 . (2009) 8 SCC 736 23 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 strengthened by Section 86(1) which provides that the "High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81".
22. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on a decision of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in Bhanwar Singh v. Navrang Singh [AIR 1987 Raj 63] . In the case before the learned Single Judge, the election petition had been presented by one Rajendra Prasad, Advocate and not by the petitioner himself. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner therein that the election petition had been validly presented under Section 81(1) of the Act because Section 81(1) of the Act only makes a provision as to who can file an election petition and does not deal with as to who should actually present it before the Registry. It is further submitted that Section 81 of the Act nowhere provides that the petitioner should be physically present at the time of presentation of the election petition. The learned Single Judge, after adverting to the words "by", "presented" concluded that these words used in Section 81(1) of the Act have to be given wide meaning and found that the election petition filed through an advocate without the presence of the candidate or elector is valid. We are unable to accept the said conclusion.
23. We have already pointed out that in spite of provisions in CPC and the Evidence Act relating to 24 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 institution of suit and recording of evidence, etc. this Act provides all the details starting from the presentation of the election petition ending with the decision of the High Court. In such circumstances, it is but proper to interpret the language used by the legislature and implement the same accordingly.
24. The challenge to an election is a serious matter. The object of presenting an election petition by a candidate or elector is to ensure genuineness and to curtail vexatious litigations. If we consider sub- section (1) along with the other provisions in Chapters II and III, the object and intent of the legislature is that this provision i.e. Section 81(1) is to be strictly adhered to and complied with.
25. In view of the endorsement by the Registrar (Judicial) on 7-7-2008 that the election petition was presented only by an advocate and not by the election petitioners, we accept the reasoning of the High Court in dismissing the election petition. We further hold that as per sub-section (1) of Section 81, an election petition is to be presented by any candidate or elector relating to the election personally to the authorised officer of the High Court and failure to adhere to such course would be contrary to the said provision and in that event the election petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of improper presentation. 25
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
26. Since the High Court has correctly dismissed the election petition, the civil appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs."
11. In the light of the aforesaid provision and the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court vide order dated 01.08.2023, directed the Registrar (Judicial-I) of this Court to submit report as to the presentation of the present election petition by the election petitioner or his Advocate in the immediate presence of the election petitioner in terms of Section - 81 (1) of the Act, 1951. In compliance with the said order, the Registrar (Judicial-I) of this Court called for report from the Section Officer, New Filing Section, O.S. Wing. Referring to the check list, proceedings vide ROC No.156/67/B1 issued by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, with regard to the Rules to regulate the trial of Election Petitions under the Act, 1951, the Registrar (Judicial-1) submitted report stating that in view of the procedure adopted by the High Court of Telangana, the election petition can be presented either by the petitioner or his counsel. In view of the time gap, by looking at the entire file, now the Scrutiny Officer or Receiving Clerk is unable to say whether the election petition was presented by the petitioner in-person or 26 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 through his counsel. However, the election petition is filed in accordance with the procedure in vogue.
12. Rule - 3 (1) of the Rules to regulate the trial of election petitions under the Act, 1951 vide ROC No.156/67/B1, is extracted below:
"Every election petition shall be filed in the office of the Registrar by the petitioner or an advocate duly appointed by him."
13. In the light of the aforesaid report, according to this Court, the present election petition was filed by the election petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down under law. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the election petition was not presented in accordance with the procedure laid down under law cannot be accepted.
14. Issue No.(viii): Whether the strong room at Junior College, Dharmapuri, is not properly locked and sealed, which resulted in tampering of EVMs and the same amounts to corrupt practices?
i) It is the specific contention of the election petitioner that the Engineering College was a place notified for preservation of EVMs and for counting of votes. But, the EVMs were transmitted to the Government Junior College, Dharmapuri on 07.12.2018 instead of 27 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 Engineering College. Only, on the next day i.e. 08.12.2018, the EVMS were taken to the Engineering College. Obviously, this was done with a mala fide intention to manipulate and tamper the EVMs.
ii) It is the further contention of the election petitioner is that the protest made by him and his agents went unheeded. By not transmitting the EVMs to a notified place itself is a violation and non-compliance with the orders and Rules made under the Act, 1951.
iii) In the light of the same, it is not in dispute that the Engineering College is the notified place for preservation of EVMs and for counting. According to CW.1 - Returning Officer, the register of voters in Form - 17A including EVMs and other connected election material were received in Receiving Centre. They are received in the Receiving Centre under his control. It was his responsibility to transmit the said material from polling stations to the Receiving Centre and from there to Strong Rooms in Engineering College. The Receiving Centre is Government Junior College, Dharmapuri. The said facts were admitted by him during his cross-examination by the election petitioner.
iv) It is also relevant to note that during cross-examination, CW.1 has categorically admitted that the Collector had issued notification 28 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 notifying Government Junior College, Dharmapuri, as Receiving Centre. Ex.B3 - Memo (Instructions/Guidelines issued by Chief Electoral Officer of Telangana) contains Report No.10 at page No.10. As per the said report, he has prepared Report No.10 on 30.11.2018 and sent it to the Chief Electoral Officer and Principal Secretary to the Government, T.S., Secretariat, Hyderabad. The said report is Ex.B4. In the said report, column No.2, name of the Assembly Segment is mentioned. In column No.3, Distribution Centre is mentioned as Government Junior College, Dharmapuri. In column No.4, Reception Centre is mentioned as Government Junior College, Dharmapuri. In column No.5, Counting Centre is mentioned as Dr.V.R.K. College of Engineering and Technology, 2nd floor, Nookapally Village, Mallial Mandal, Jagtial District. From Dharmapuri Government Junior College, the election material including EVMs, were distributed to the polling stations.
v) CW.1, during cross-examination further admitted that all the EVMs and election material arrived at the reception centre by 12 'O' Clock in the midnight. The verification of the election material and EVMs take place at reception centre and after that they are loaded into RTC closed buses and sealed. They were escorted to Counting Centre at Engineering College. The entire process of verification, loading, 29 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 transportation and unloading took place till 8.30 A.M. on 08.12.2018. The EVMs and election material were stored in the Strong Room at Engineering College. The strong room is locked and sealed in the presence of contesting candidates and their agents. Their signatures were obtained on the seals. Throughout the said process, CW.1 and Election Observer were present and contesting candidates and their chief election agents were also present. The strong room is under the surveillance of Central Police Force day and night.
vi) The aforesaid facts would reveal that the Government Junior College, Dharmapuri is a notified distribution centre and reception centre. Engineering College is the counting centre. The same is also evident from Ex.A8 and Ex.B4.
vii) During cross-examination, the election petitioner (PW.1) categorically admitted as follows:
"I received the notice dated 27.11.2018 from the Returning Officer fixing the date 28.11.2018 for commissioning of EVMs. As an Agent on behalf of our Congress Party, Sri S. Dinesh attended the EVMs programming on 28.11.2018 at Government Junior College, Dharmapuri. By that time, I was not given the B-Form by the Congress Party. I 30 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 have filed my nomination on 20.11.2018. The Congress Party gave B-Form to me on 18.11.2018.
It is true that Commissioning of EVMs was postponed to 29.11.2018. It is true that on 27.11.2018 the Returning Officer has issued the notice of commissioning of EVMs to all the contesting candidates. My party President (Mandal Congress President) Sri S. Dinesh attended before the Returning Officer on 29.11.2018 at 7.00 A.M. I cannot identify the signature of the said Sri S. Dinesh on the notice dated 27.11.2018. As I was in the canvassing for the elections, I could not attend the commissioning of EVMs on 29.11.2018. The persons who attended the EVMs commissioning on 29.11.2018 have signed in Annexure - XV. On my behalf, Sri NVS Lalith Babu attended the said programme. NVS Lalith Babu is my Chief Election Agent. After commissioning of the EVMs on 29.11.2018, they were kept in strong room in the Government Junior College, Dharmapuri.
It is true that on 31.11.2018, during commissioning of EVMs, a mock poll was conducted. After conducting mock poll, EVMs were kept in the strong room. I was 31 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 not present at the time of said mock poll. As per Annexure - XVIII (Page No.19 of Ex.A8), 1000 votes have been cast on 5% randomly selected EVMs during mock poll. Lalith Babu has not given any complaint to me after the mock poll that the EVMs are not working properly.
In Gazette Publication filed as Ex.A1, the place of storing of EVMs is notified. When the witness was asked to point out in Ex.A1 as to where it is mentioned, the witness says that it is not there in Ex.A1, but it is there in some other document.
The process of collecting the election material, sealing of EVMs took place at about 8.30 P.M. Thereafter, the EVMs were transferred to Junior College at Dharmapuri. Our polling agents have not signed the sealing of EVMs at some places where Form
- 17C were not furnished. I stated in my Election Petition that my polling agents have not signed the sealing of EVMs where they have not received Form - 17C. Our polling agents have not accompanied the transportation of EVMs from polling stations to Junior College, Dharmapuri where they were stored as the police did not allow my polling agents. Witness adds that police did 32 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 not allow any party polling agents to accompany transportation of EVMs to the Junior College, Dharmapuri. None of the polling agents or other private persons stayed at the Junior College, Dharmapuri after transportation of EVMs to the Junior College. I have stated in the Election Petition that the police did not permit our agents to be present at Dharmapuri Junior College.
It is only my allegation that EVMs were tampered at the Junior College, Dharmapuri, but there is no evidence as such. I have not given any written complaint against the storing of EVMs at Junior College, Dharmapur either to the Election Authority or the Election Commission. But, I have informed the District Collector/Election Authority and Returning Officer over phone. I have no record of two phone calls to show that I have complained to them. I have not made any effort to secure the call list at the time of filing the Election Petition, but if necessary I will procure it and file. It is true that in the Election Petition, I have not stated that the Returning Officer and Mr. Sarath have taken undue advantage of their official favour to cause benefit to the 33 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 respondent No.1 and thereby materially affect the election as now stated in para 11 of my chief examination affidavit. The EVMs were tampered and hacked by the Assistant Returning Officer Mr. Venkat Reddy with the help of technicians. I have definite information about the said tampering. I have made a complaint to the Election Authority about the Assistant Returning Officer with regard to the tampering of EVMs. I have not filed copy of the said complaint in this election petition. In para 15 of my election petition, I have not mentioned about the involvement of Assistant Returning Officer and about the complaint given against him to the Election Authority/District Collector. It is my assumption that EVMs were tampered and manipulated when they were kept in Govt. Junior College, Dharmapuri since it is not a notified place. I or my election agent have not seen the said tampering and manipulation since we were not allowed to stay at Govt. Junior College, Dharmapuri."
viii) Thus, PW.1 - election petitioner himself during cross- examination categorically admitted about Notifying Government Junior College, Dharmapuri as Receiving Centre, commission of EVMs, mock 34 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 poll at the said Centre. Polling Agents have signed the sealing of EVMs at some places where Form - 17C were not furnished. He has also admitted that it is only his assumption that EVMs were tampered at the Junior College, Dharmapuri, but there is no evidence as such.
ix) In the light of the aforesaid admissions, the contention of the election petitioner that the strong room at Government Junior College is not properly locked and sealed which resulted in tampering of EVMs and the same amounts to corrupt practices cannot be accepted and it is unsustainable. Therefore, this issue is answered against the election petitioner.
15. Issue No.(ix): Whether counting or recounting of VVPATs slips of all polling booths are permissible under election rules?
i) It is the specific contention of the election petitioner that despite specific request, Returning Officer did not carry out counting of VVPAT slips.
ii) In the counter filed by respondent No.1, it is contended that except filing of copy of application dated 11.12.2018 said to have been submitted to the Returning Officer, the election petitioner has not stated as to why he has not complained to the Election Observer, Chief Electoral Officer or Election Commission of India. The election 35 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact that upon the choice made by the election petitioner, the Returning Officer had carried out the counting of VVPATs in four polling booths and no discrepancy was found. The election petitioner was satisfied about the same and even then he filed the present election petition making false and baseless allegations. Thus, the election petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.
i)
iii) In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to extract Rules - 56C and 56D of the Rules, 1961 "56C. Counting of votes.--(1) After the returning officer is satisfied that a voting machine has in fact not been tampered with, he shall have the votes recorded therein counted by pressing the appropriate button marked "Result" provided in the control unit whereby the total votes polled and votes polled by each candidate shall be displayed in respect of each such candidate on the display panel provided for the purpose in the unit.
(2) As the votes polled by each candidate are displayed on the control unit, the returning officer shall have,--
(a) the number of such votes recorded separately in respect of each candidate in Part II on Form 17C;
(b) Part II of Form 17C completed in other respects and signed by the counting 36 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 supervisor and also by the candidates or their election agents or their counting agents present; and
(c) corresponding entries made in a result sheet in Form 20 and the particulars so entered in the result sheet announced."
"56D. Scrutiny of paper trial.- (1) Where printer for paper trail is used, after the entries made in the result sheet are announced, any candidate, or in his absence, his election agent or any of his counting agents may apply in writing to the returning officer to count the printed paper slips in the drop box of the printer in respect of any polling station or polling stations.
(2) On such application being made, the returning officer shall, subject to such general or special guidelines, as may be issued by the Election Commission, decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject in whole, if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable.
(3) Every decision of the returning officer under sub-rule (2) shall be in writing and shall contain the reasons thereof.
(4) If the returning officer decides under sub-rule (2) to allow counting of the paper 37 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 slips either wholly or in part or parts, he shall-
do the counting in the manner as may be directed by the Election Commission;
if there is discrepancy between the votes displayed on the control unit and the counting of the paper slips, amend the result sheet in Form 20 as per the paper slips count;
announce the amendments so made by him;
and complete and sign the result sheet."
Therefore, the election petitioner has to make out the aforesaid grounds for recounting of VVPAT slips in respect of all the polling booths of the subject constituency.
iv) As discussed supra, it is the specific allegation of the election petitioner that despite specific request, Returning Officer did not act upon his application for counting of VVPAT slips. The Returning Officer and the District Election Officer have taken undue advantage of their official position to cause benefit to respondent No.1 and thereby materially affected the election.
v) However, during cross-examination, PW.1 has categorically admitted as follows:
38
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 "....The further statement that in spite of my request wherein I mentioned to count the VVPAT Slips of these 9-10 polling stations was rejected. This statement was also not stated in my Election Petition. The further statement that the random counting of VVPAT Slips of 5 EVMs as provided in guideline 16.6 of the Handbook was also not followed, and everything was recorded in the Videos and CC TVs footages. This statement was also not mentioned in my Election Petition...."
"...At the time of opening strong rooms, I was informed that all the EVM machines are proper but when the EVMs were brought into the counting room and after starting of counting of votes, the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer informed that four (04) EVMs are not opening and told that they will summon the technicians for opening those four (04) EVMs. After technicians came and inspected the EVMs, they declared that the said four (04) EVMs cannot be opened. Thereafter, the VVPATS of the said four (04) EVMs were counted at the end of counting. We agreed for the process of counting of VVPATS. It is true that I did not state the above stated facts of 39 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 not opening of four (04) EVMs and counting of VVPATS of such EVMs in my Election Petition. It is true that I have not complained/informed about the above stated facts to the District Election Authority or to the Election Commission."
"......When the Returning Officer refused to receive the application filed by me for counting of VVPATS, I complained to the Election Authority about the action of the Returning Officer through e-mail. The witness again states that he gave a complaint to the Election Observer, but not to the Election Authority and he forwarded the complaint through e-mail to the Election Commission of India, New Delhi. The witness again states that he has given complaint to the Returning Officer and the Returning Officer has given the same to the Election Observer and the Election Observer forwarded the same to the Election Commission of India and the said acts were recorded in video. I have obtained the said video recording copies in the form of DVD, but the said DVD has become unviewable. It is true that I have not filed the copy of the complaint against the Returning Officer for not counting the VVPATS or the video 40 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 recording furnished in the DVD format in the Election Petition."
vi) CW.1 - Returning Officer, in his cross-examination, categorically admitted as follows:
"Witness on confrontation with Ex.A7 and copy of another letter dated 11.12.2018 addressed by the Election Petitioner to the Election Commission of India, copy marked to Returning Officer gone through the contents and stated that he received request for counting of VVpats not through Ex.A7 but through the letter dated 11.12.2018 addressed to the Chief Election Commission of India, and the Photostat copy of the said letter addressed to the Chief Election Commission of India marked as Ex.B5. It is true that when the Election Petitioner was asked to elect counting of four VVpats, then in the subject portion of Ex.B5 the word "All" was corrected as "4". The said letter has been attested by Naib Tahsildar, Dharmapuri. This document was obtained under Right to Information Act issued by the Assistant Returning Officer.
After counting of VVpats of four polling stations no variations are found and I issued proceedings under Ex.B1 marked in the 41 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 cross-examination of PW.1. It is true that for each polling station, 3 paper seals will be supplied."
vii) It is also relevant to note that during cross-examination, the Returning Officer (CW.1) categorically admitted that he took Ex.A7 - representation dated 11.12.2018 and shown to the Election Observer, who informed him not to receive the same as 13th round of counting was completed by that time.
viii) The afore-stated facts would reveal that the election petitioner himself requested for counting of VVPATs and selected the aforesaid four polling booths and the same were counted at the end of the counting. The election petitioner and his agents were agreed for process of counting of VVPATs.
ix) There is no request made by either the election petitioner or his election agent to count VVPAT slips of all the polling stations of the subject constituency. Even then, he has not stated the aforesaid facts in his election petition. Thus, he has suppressed the material facts in the present election petition. Therefore, the contention of the election petitioner that despite request, Returning Officer did not conduct 42 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 counting of VVPAT slips of all polling booths cannot be accepted, and it is contrary to record.
x) As stated above, recounting of VVPAT slips is permissible in terms of Rule - 56D of the Rules, 1961. But at the same time, the election petitioner has to make out the said grounds for recounting of VVPAT slips. No application in terms of Rule - 56D of the Rules, 1961 was filed.
xi) In the present case, the election petitioner or his agents did not request the Returning Officer to recount VVPAT slips of all the polling stations. In fact, he has suppressed about the recounting of VVPAT slips in respect of four (04) polling booths/EVMS. Therefore, this issue is answered against the election petitioner.
16. Issue Nos.(ii) & (iv): Whether the difference of 136 votes between Report No.22 furnished on 08.12.2018 and the Report furnished on 20.12.2018 would materially affect the result of the election of respondent No.1?, and Whether the difference of votes between Report No.22 and Final Result Sheet in Form - 20 and even it is a human error, can be sufficient to order recount of printed paper slips/VVPAT slips in the EVMs pertaining to Dharmapuri Assembly Constituency? 43
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
i) It is the specific contention of the election petitioner that there is difference of 136 votes between report No.22 furnished on 08.12.2018 and report furnished on 20.12.2018 and the same will materially affect the election of respondent No.1. In fact, the difference of votes is 132, but not 136. It is a human error, it can be sufficient to order recount of printer paper slips/VVPAT slips in the EVMs pertaining to the subject constituency.
ii) In the counter filed by respondent No.1, it is specifically contended that the allegation made by the election petitioner with regard to difference of votes etc., is false and baseless. The election petitioner is pointing out the difference in report No.22 dated 08.12.2018 and 20.12.2018 and the final result in Form - 20. But he suppressed the difference among them as the difference will not affect the result of respondent No.1. The difference of votes between report No.22 furnished on 08.12.2018 and 20.12.2018 is only 132. The said fact would reveal from the tabular form of paragraph No.14 of the election petition, which was extracted in paragraph No.4 (xiii) above.
iii) Referring to the above said table, the election petitioner would contend that the EVMs were tampered and hacked by using corrupt practices at the instance of respondent No.1 to see that he will be 44 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 declared as elected candidate. He relied upon Ex.A4 - copy of report No.22 and Ex.A5 - copy of Form - 20, final result sheet, furnished by CW.1 - Returning Officer.
iv) However, during cross-examination, the election petitioner (PW.1) categorically admitted that the signature of the Returning Officer is there only at the last page of Ex.A4. Report No.22 is prepared and furnished by the Returning Officer based on the information furnished by the Polling Officers of each Polling Station. Report No.22 furnished by the Returning Officer which is final report shows the total number of votes as 1,65,209. He does not know there will be preliminary - 22 report and final - 22 report. The Returning Officer will be collecting information on phone from the polling officers about the number of votes polled and percentage of votes polled every hour. The Returning Officer after compiling the information received from the polling officers will display the same in the website. He has not stated in his election petition that the difference of 132 votes between the final result sheet and report No.22 is not explained.
v) He has further admitted that he has not stated in his election petition that he and his election agents have objected for the aforesaid information (both) not tallying, but Returning Officer under the 45 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 influence of the District Election Officer, have ignored and orally rejected their contentions. Though he has stated that he has made complaints to the Election Observer in writing, he has not filed the same.
vi) He has further admitted that Ex.A4 was furnished to him on 08.12.2018. In page No.52 of Ex.A4, the percentage of total voters turned out was mentioned as 79.96. The report No.22 at page No.94 of the material papers was furnished by the Returning Officer on 08.01.2019 along with his reply to his application under RTI Act which was marked as Ex.A8. In the said report No.22 at page No.100, the percentage of total voters polled is shown as 80.02. The report dated 11.12.2018 of the Returning Officer regarding counting of VVPATs in four counting stations is correct.
vii) It is also relevant to note that the Returning Officer (CW.1) during his cross-examination categorically admitted that in the entire election manual there is no mention of report No.22. The said report No.22 is only mentioned at page No.19 in Ex.B3 (Memo of the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana). Therefore, it is not a statutory report. Ex.A4 (Report No.22) was signed by him on 07.12.2018. On the same day, he sent the said report to the Chief Election Officer through e-mail. 46
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 Next day i.e., on 08.12.2018, he prepared report No.22 based on the information contained in Form - 17C Part-I and sent it to the Chief Election Officer.
viii) In the light of the aforesaid admissions and perusal of Exs.A4 and A5 would reveal that the election petitioner failed to prove the said difference.
ix) During cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that he does not know that there will be preliminary - 22 report and final - 22 report. He has not stated in his election petition that the difference of 132 votes between the final result sheet and report No.22 is not explained. He has not stated in his election petition that he and his election agents have objected for the said information (both) not tallying and that Returning Officer under the influence of the District Election Officer have ignored and orally rejected their contentions. They have not complained in writing to the Election Observer on the same.
x) Report No.22 is not statutory as held by the High Court of Karnataka in Raja Madan Gopala Nayak v. Venkatesh Naik 2 and the 2 . 2005 SCC OnLine Kar.890 47 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 High Court of Jharkhand in Ramji Lal Sarda v. Gopal Sharan Nath Sahdeo 3.
xi) It is relevant to note that respondent No.1 was declared as elected candidate with a majority of 441 votes. If the said difference of 132 votes between report No.22 (Ex.A4) and final result sheet in form No.20 (Ex.A5) is deducted from the majority of 441 votes, still respondent No.1 - Returned Candidate got majority of 309 votes. Therefore, the same will not materially affect the result of election of respondent No.1 and election petitioner cannot seek recount of VVPAT slips in respect of all the polling stations of the subject constituency. Therefore, the said issue Nos.2 and 4 are answered against the election petitioner.
17. Issue No.(vi): Whether the election of the returned candidate respondent No.1 can be declared as null and void without challenging the declaration of the result of election in Form - 21C under Rule 64 of Rules, 1961 read with Section - 66 of the Act, 1951?
i) To deal with this issue effectively, it is apt to refer to Rule - 64 of the Rules, 1961 and Section - 66 of the Act, 1951 and Form - 21C and the same are reproduced hereunder:
3
. 2012 SCC OnLine Jhar.244 48 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
64. Declaration of result of election and return of election.--The returning officer shall, subject to the provisions of section 65 if and so far as they apply to any particular case, then--
(a) declare in Form 21C or Form 21D, as may be appropriate, the candidate to whom the largest number of valid votes have been given, to be elected under section 66 and send signed copies thereof to the appropriate authority, the Election Commission and the chief electoral officer; and
(b) Complete and certify the return of election in Form 21E, and send signed copies thereof to the Election Commission and the chief electoral officer.
66. Declaration of results.- When the counting of the votes has been completed, the returning officer shall, in the absence of any direction by the Election Commission to the contrary, forthwith declare the result of the election in the manner provided by this Act or the rules made thereunder."
FORM 21C (See rule 64) (For use in General Election when seat is contested) DECLARATION OF THE RESULT OF ELECTION UNDER SECTION 66 OF THE REPRESENTATIONOF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 *Election to the House of the People from the................ Parliamentary constituency in............................. (State/Union territory). ___________________________________________________________________ *Election to the Legislative Assembly of................(State/Union territory) from..............Assembly constituency. _ *Election to the Metropolitan Council of Delhi from...................... Metropolitan Council constituency.
49
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 In pursuance of the provisions contained in section 66 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with rule 64 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, I declare that--
........................................(Name)...................... (Address) sponsored by ............................(name of the recognised/registered political party) has been duly elected to fill the seat in that House from the above constituency. Place............... Signature ............... Date................. Returning Officer. *Score out, if inappropriate.
ii) It is the specific contention of respondent No.1 that the election petitioner did not seek to declare the result of the election in Form - 21C under Rule - 64 read with Section - 66 of the Act, 1951. The election petitioner has not even filed Form - 21C.
iii) Though there is no specific relief sought by the election petitioner to declare the result of the election in Form - 21C under Rule - 64 read with Section - 66 of the Act, 1951, however, he has sought to declare the election of respondent No.1 as returned candidate from 022- Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency to the Legislative Assembly General Elections held on 07.12.2018 as null and void and to declare him as elected Member. Therefore, the said relief of seeking declaration to declare the result of Election in Form - 21C under Rule - 64 of the Rules, 1961 read with Section - 66 of the Act, 1951 as null and void is only a consequential relief. Section - 100 of the Act, 1951 deals with grounds for declaring the election to be void. Therefore, the election 50 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 petitioner has to establish the said grounds. Thus, the said relief is only a consequential relief and therefore non-seeking of the said relief to declare the result of election in Form - 21C by the election petitioner will not disentitle him to seek the result of respondent No.1 as returned candidate as null and void. Therefore, this issue is answered against respondent No.1.
18. Issue Nos.(i), (iii), (v) & (vii): Whether the result of the election, concerning the Returned Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 has been materially affected?; Whether any corrupt practice has been committed by the Returned Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 or his Election Agent or by any other person with the consent of respondent No.1 or his election agent?; Whether the election of the Returned Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 can be declared to be void? If so, whether the petitioner can be declared to have been duly elected from 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency to the Legislative Assembly General Elections held on 07.12.2018?; and Whether the election of the 1st respondent can be declared as null and void, when the contents of the election petition and relief sought do not attract the provisions of Section 100(1) (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
51
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
i) Before dealing with the said issues, it is apt to refer to Section - 100 of the Act, 1951 and the same is extracted hereunder:
"100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court] is of opinion--
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected--
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or 52 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
xxxxx xxxxx"
ii) To answer the aforesaid issues, it is relevant to refer Section -
123 of the Act, 1951, which deals with corrupt practices and the same is extracted below:
"123. Corrupt practices.--The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:--
(1) "Bribery", that is to say--
(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing--
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, or
(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to--
(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn] his candidature; or
(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting; (B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive or a reward--
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing] from being, a candidate; or
(b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause the term "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the 53 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in section 78.
(2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right:
Provided that--
(a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who--
(i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion from any caste or community; or
(ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause;
(b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of publicaction, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this clause.
(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidates or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate:
Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purposes of this clause.
(3A) The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.54
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 (3B) The propagation of the practice or the commission of sati or its glorification by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, "sati" and "glorification" in relation to sati shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988).
(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election. (5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector (other than the candidate himself the members of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided under section 25 or a place fixed under sub-section (1) of section 29 for the poll:
Provided that the hiring of a vehicle or vessel by an elector or by several electors at their joint costs for the purpose of conveying him or them to and from any such polling station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause if the vehicle or vessel so hired is a vehicle or vessel not propelled by mechanical power:
Provided further that the use of any public transport vehicle or vessel or any tramcar or railway carriage by any elector at his own cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause.
Explanation.--In this clause, the expression "vehicle" means any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise and whether used for drawing other vehicles or otherwise.
(6) The incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention of section 77.
(7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person 55 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election, from any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the following classes, namely:--
a. gazetted officers;
b. stipendiary judges and magistrates; c. members of the armed forces of the Union; d. members of the police forces;
e. excise officers;
f. revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars, patels, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of land revenue collected by them but who do not discharge any police functions; and] g. such other class of persons in the service of the Government as may be prescribed:
Provided that where any person, in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the classes aforesaid, in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty, makes any arrangements or provides any facilities or does any other act or thing, for, to, or in relation to, any candidate or his agent or any other person acting with the consent of the candidate or his election agent (whether by reason of the office held by the candidate or for any other reason), such arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall not be deemed to be assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election.
h. class of persons in the service of a local authority, university, government company or institution or concern or undertaking appointed or deputed by the Election Commission in connection with the conduct of elections.
(8) Booth capturing by a candidate or his agent or other person.
Explanation.--(1) In this section the expression "agent" includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate.
(2) For the purposes of clause (7), a person shall be deemed to assist in the furtherance of the prospects of a candidate's election if he acts as an election agent of that candidate.] (3) For the purposes of clause (7), notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the publication in the Official Gazette of the appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or 56 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 removal from service of a person in the service of the Central Government (including a person serving in connection with the administration of a Union territory) or of a State Government shall be conclusive proof--
(i) of such appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service, as the case may be, and
(ii) where the date of taking effect of such appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service, as the case may be, is stated in such publication, also of the fact that such person was appointed with effect from the said date, or in the case of resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from service such person ceased to be in such service with effect from the said date.
(4) For the purposes of clause (8), "booth capturing" shall have the same meaning as in section 135A."
Therefore, the election petitioner has to make out the allegations of corrupt practices committed by returned candidate, his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent, to declare the election of returned candidate as void in terms of Section - 100 of the Act, 1951. He has to plead and prove the same by producing cogent evidence.
iii) In Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba 4, the Apex Court held that trial of an election petition on the allegation of corrupt practice is of a quasi-criminal in nature and burden lies on the person alleged the same to prove including the ingredients of the charge strictly. The said 4 . (1991) 2 SCC 342 57 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 principle was reiterated in Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi 5 and Baldev Singh Mann v. Surjit Singh Dhiman 6.
iv) Interpretation of Section - 123 (3) of the Act, 1951 fell for consideration on a reference before a seven-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (dead) by LRs 7. In the dissenting opinion, the Hon'ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud observed that election petitions alleging corrupt practice have a quasi-criminal character. Where a statutory provision implicates penal consequences or consequences of a quasi-criminal character, a strict construction of the words used by the Legislature must be adopted. Therefore, the standard of proof should be much higher than a preponderance of probabilities which operates in civil trials. The standard of proof in an election trial veers close to that which guides a criminal trial.
v) In the light of the aforesaid legal position, coming to the facts of the case on hand, according to the election petitioner, the following are the corrupt practices which affected the election materially:
a) EVMs were tampered; 5 . (1999) 9 SCC 386 6 . (2009) 1 SCC 633 7 . (2017) 2 SCC 629 58 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
b) request of the election petitioner for recounting of VVPAT slips in respect of all the polling stations was not considered;
c) EVMs and other election material were not preserved in the place notified;
d) on conclusion of polling on 07.12.2018, the election petitioner and his election agents received numerous complaints from their polling agents about non-furnishing of Form-17C, especially with regard to polling station Nos.77, 97, 120, 138, 164, 196, 218, 227 and 237;
e) Despite specific request, the said information was not furnished to the election petitioner under RTI Act;
f) Data of Form-17A is not tallying with that of data in report No.22, and if it does not tally, then it raises to different situations, the net result will be to conduct fresh poll to those concerned polling stations;
g) The Presiding Officers of the respective polling stations need to tally this data for every two (02) hours and the data does not tally, then ultimately there has to be fresh poll in terms of Section - 58 of the Act, 1951;
59
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
h) Report No.22 is not properly maintained which is mandatory which led to irregularities in receiving and recording of votes and the same is a ground of challenge under Section - 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951, since it covers even to the orders made under the said Act, 1951;
i) Returning Officer (CW.1) fabricated a false report No.22 annexed to Ex.A8;
j) Non-consideration of representation is a violation of Rules -
63 and 56D of the Rules, 1961 which raises second ground of challenge i.e., Section - 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act, 1951;
k) Maintenance of Report No.22 with incorrect data raises suspicion and during trial, the evidence which has been placed on record raises to third ground in terms of Section - 100 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act, 1951 i.e., improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote. In support of the same, the election petitioner relied on Table - III of his evidence affidavit;
l) Copies of Form - 17C and 17A of all the polling stations were not furnished to the election petitioner despite request 60 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 and the same were furnished, he could have pointed out the said manipulations at the time of counting itself;
m) Returning Officer has manipulated the records and changed his report No.22 (Ex.A8) to see that the same is matching the final result sheet as the votes polled is shown as 1,65,341 and voting percentage as 80.02;
n) In his counter, respondent No.1 contended that non-tallying of information is a human error/mistake, thus, he has introduced two theories i.e., (i) there are two (02) reports; one preliminary report and final report; (ii) based on periodical report through cell phone, an hourly report was prepared and subsequently a revised report was sent. Reliance was placed on Ex.B6;
o) CCTV Footage was not furnished in spite of directions;
p) Records were not properly maintained as mandated under the Act, 1951 and the Rules, 1961 which led to incorrect preparation of report No.22 which materially affected the result of the election. Reliance was placed on Ex.C1 - report of the Election Commissioner of India;
61
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019
vi) As discussed above, during cross-examination, PW.1 admitted about commissioning of EVMs, presence of his election agent, collection of election material, sealing of EVMs, signing of the same by all the election candidates and their election agents.
vii) He has further admitted, "it is only my allegation that EVMs were tampered at the Junior College, Dharmapuri, but there is no evidence as such. I have not given any written complaint against storing of EVMs at the Junior College, Dharmapuri. Technically, I am not aware how tampering will be done in the EVMs. It is my assumption that EVMs were tampered and manipulated when they were kept in Junior College, Dharmapuri."
viii) It is relevant to note that the High Court of Gujarat in Khemchand Rajaram Kosthi v. Election Commission of India 8, a public interest litigation filed by a practicing advocate of the High Court of Gujarat, had an occasion to deal with the aspect of tampering of EVMs. Referring to various provisions of the Act, 1951 and the Rules, 1961 extensively and several judgments in paragraph Nos.10 and 11, held/observed as follows:
8
. R/W.P. (PIL) No.36 of 2019, decided on 19.03.2019 62 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 "10. It has to be borne in mind that the foundation and the basis of the allegation is a lurking fear repeatedly voiced and demonstrated by the Election Commission Of India that the EVMs are tamperproof. From what we will reproduce hereinafter, the material which was available to the petitioner, a practicing lawyer, as is evident from the communication dated 10.01.2019 addressed to him, a reference has been made to the Commission's 'Status Paper on EVM/ VVPAT' which has comprehensively addressed and cleared all doubts and queries regarding the credibility of EVMs used by the Election Commission of India. The letter unequivocally states that the Commission has firm conviction about the integrity, non-
tamperability and credibility of the EVMs and is confident of its robustness and reliability in view of its technical security features, comprehensive administrative protocols and robust procedural safeguards that protect the EVMs and VVPATs against any sort of manipulation at any stage, before, during or after the polls including manufacture, transportation, storage, polling and counting process. (emphasis supplied).
10.1 Once an autonomous constitutional authority like the Election Commission Of India, which has till date, fulfilled the avowed object of conducting free and fair elections in the largest democracy of the world makes such a statement, in its letter addressed to the petitioner assuring the robustness of C/WPPIL/36/2019 CAV ORDER the procedural safeguards, this Court shall be loath to sit in judgement over the assurance of a 63 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 constitutional authority like the Election Commission Of India and show the zealousness to overstep its jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India, on mere uncharted reservations and apprehensions voiced by the petitioner.
11. It would also be fruitful to reproduce the information about introduction, present status and the conclusion about EVMs/VVPATs as per the aforesaid Commission's 'Status Paper on EVM/VVPAT' for ready reference and which has been requested by the Election Commission of India to be referred in the communication dated 10.01.2019 addressed to the petitioner. This will also help us to trace the EVMs/VVPATs' journey into the election process of this country through the Status Paper.
"Introduction:
India is the largest Participatory Democracy of the world, with about 850 million registered voters. The Constitutional mandate of superintendence, direction and control of Elections to the Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies has been conferred on the Election Commission of India.
The Election Commission of India is an independent Constitutional entity, which has successfully conducted regular elections to the Parliament and various State Legislative Assemblies for the past 66 years in a free, fair, participative, informed and credible manner. The Commission is widely acknowledged as a ''Global Gold Standard'' in Election Management across the World, setting ever- higher standards of efficient and professional conduct of Elections.
The Commission has been at the forefront of embracing, adopting and implementing the latest technological advancements in improving and fine- tuning the election processes and systems. The Commission has taken the pioneering initiative of 64 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 introducing Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) for recording, storing and counting of votes across the length and breadth of the Country in a transparent, credible and secure manner, backed by appropriate legal support. The use of EVM demonstrates the Commission's unflinching resolve to continually improve, upgrade and strengthen the Electoral Process in the country.
The Commission has successfully used EVMs in conducting 113 General Elections to the State Legislative Assemblies and 3 Lok Sabha Elections over the last 23 years. The List of States, along with the years in which 100% EVMs were used in the Assembly Elections is placed at ANNEXURE - 1.
55.41 crore (554 million) voters exercised their franchise in 2014 Lok Sabha elections using EVMs.
Since the very inception of the EVMs in 1982, as a positive electoral reform on the electoral scene in India, blames and aspersions have been cast on the EVMs from various quarters including political. Recently, after the announcement of the results of the five State Assembly Elections in March 2017, again certain allegations have been levelled against the EVMs. A group of thirteen political parties met the Commission on 10 April 2017 and expressed certain reservations about the use of EVMs.
It needs to be emphasized that the wide range of technical security, administrative protocols and procedural safeguards mandated by the Commission robustly ensures the integrity, non-tamperability and credibility of the EVMs. The stringent procedures and well-defined poll processes prescribed by the Commission protect the EVMs against any sort of manipulation.
It is also significant to highlight that the Commission is committed to the 100% coverage of VVPATs in all future elections to the Parliament and State Assembly Elections. The requisite funds for the procurement of adequate number of VVPATs and latest generation (M3) EVMs have been sanctioned by the Government and machines are expected to be manufactured and delivered by BEL and ECIL to the 65 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 ECI by November 2018 as committed by the manufacturers.
At the present juncture, when EVMs are once again encumbered with yet another debate on its efficacy and robustness, it is imperative to hold consultations with stakeholders.
VERIFIABLE PAPER AUDIT TRAIL (VVPAT) In a meeting of all political parties held on 4th October, 2010, the parties expressed satisfaction with the EVM but some parties requested the Commission to consider introducing Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail for further transparency and verifiability in poll process. In India, the demand of VVPAT to increase transparency was floating in the air for some time after such a tool was first demonstrated in New York City in March 2001 and first used in Sacramento, California in 2002. The demand was referred to the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) by the ECI. Introduction of VVPAT implied that a paper slip is generated bearing name and symbol of the candidate along with recording of vote in Control Unit, so that in case of any dispute, paper slip could be counted to verify the result being shown on the EVM. Under VVPAT, a printer is attached to the balloting Unit and kept in the voting compartment. The paper slip remains visible on VVPAT for 07 seconds through a transparent window. The Commission referred the matter to its Technical Expert Committee (TEC) on EVMs for examining and making a recommendation in this regard. The Expert Committee had several rounds of meetings with the manufacturers of EVM, namely, BEL & ECIL, on this issue and then had met the political parties and other civil society members to explore the design requirement of the VVPAT system with the EVM. On the direction of the Expert Committee, the BEL and ECIL made a prototype and demonstrated before the Committee and the Commission in 2011. On the recommendation of the Expert Committee on EVM & VVPAT system, the Commission conducted simulated election for the field trial of VVPAT system in Ladakh (Jammu & Kashmir), Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala), Cherrapunjee (Meghalaya), East Delhi District (NCT 66 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 of Delhi) and Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) in July 2011. All stake holders including senior leaders of political parties and civil society members participated and witnessed enthusiastically in the field trial. After 1st field trial of the VVPAT system, Commission made a detailed reassessment of the VVPAT system to further fine tune the VVPAT system. Accordingly, the manufacturers developed 2nd version of VVPAT prototype. The same was again subjected to 2nd field trial in the said five locations in July- August 2012. In the meeting of the Technical Expert Committee held on 19th February, 2013, the Committee approved the design of VVPAT and also recommended the Commission to take action on amendment of the rules for using VVPAT. The model was demonstrated to all the political parties in an all-party meeting on 10th May, 2013. The Government of India notified the amended Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 on 14th August, 2013, enabling the Commission to use VVPAT with EVMs. On 4th September, 2013, the Commission used VVPAT with EVMs first time in bye-election from 51-Noksen (ST) Assembly Constituency of Nagaland.
On 8th October, 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered introduction of VVPAT in phases in its judgment on a PIL and asked Government to sanction funds for procurement. As directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the ECI introduced the VVPAT system in a phased manner so that full implementation could be achieved by 2019. In 2013, the ECI procured 20000 VVPATs. On 25th November, 2013, VVPATs were used in 10 ACs in Mizoram; on 4th December 2013, it was used in one AC in Delhi; and thereafter in subsequent elections. The following table gives us the journey of VVPAT in India at a glance:
Date Chronology Events
4th Oct 2010 An all-party meeting held. Agreement on
incorporation of VVPATs along with
EVMs
07/01/11 Field trial conducted after the prototype
67
KL,J
E.P.No.12 of 2019
was manufactured, in Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala), Delhi, Cherapunjee (Meghalaya), Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) and Leh (Jammu & Kashimir).
July-Aug 2012 A second field trial was conducted 19th Feb 2013 Final model was approved by TEC 10th May 2013 The Model was demonstrated to all political parties 14th Aug 2013 The conduct ofElection Rules 1961 was amended and notified Date Chronology Events 8th Oct 2013 Hon'ble Supeme Court directed ECI to introduce the VVPAt system in a phased manner. Full implementation to be achieved by 2019 25th Nov 2013 VVPATS were used in 10 ACs of Mizoram 4th Dec 2013 VVPAT was used in one AC in Delhi and thereafter in subsequent elections Feb-Mar 2017 52000 VVPATs were used in 33 ACs in Punjab, 6 ACs in Manipur, 3 ACs in Uttarakhand, 30 ACs in Uttar Pradesh and 40 ACs in Goa 04/01/17 Approval of Government received for purchase of 16,15,000 VVPATs at a total estimated cost of Rs.3173.47 Crores** **Cost of 16,15,000 VVPATs reduced toRs.2616.30 Cr. After fixation of price by the Price Negotiation Committee.
12th May 2017 All Political Parties Meeting held. The Commission decided to use 100% VvPATs at every polling station in all future elections to Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies.
19th Sept., 2017 The Commission directed to use 100% VVPATs at every polling station was formally communicated to all Chief Electoral Officers to ensure compliance.
11th Oct, 2017 The Commission decoded to conduct mandatory verification of VVPAT slips of randomly selected 01 Polling Station per AC. Subsequently, mandatory verification of VVPAT slips has been 68 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 further extended to 01 randomly selected Polling Station of each Assembly segment of Parliamentary Constituency also.
So, far, VVPATs have been used in 933 Assembly Constituencies and 18 Parliamentary Constituencies. Till date, VVPAT slip verification has been undertaken for 792 polling stations and in all the cases, the results tallied with the electronic result in the CU. Present Status:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 8 Oct 2013 has observed that EVMs with VVPAT system ensures the accuracy of the voting system. With an intent to have fullest transparency in the system and to restore the confidence of the voters, it is necessary to set up EVMs with VVPAT systems because vote is nothing but an act of expression which has immense importance in democratic system. The apex court appreciated the efforts and good gesture made by the ECI in introducing VVPATs and permitted the ECI to introduce the same in a gradual stages or geographical wise in the ensuing general elections. The Court also directed the Government of India to provide required financial assistance for the procurement of units of VVPATs for the implementation of VVPAT system in a phased manner.
Amidst the ongoing debate on the EVM, the ECI not only reaffirmed its faith on the transparency, credibility, non- tamperability and robustness of the machines, but also stressed on the immediate deployment of VVPATs for safeguarding the integrity of the voting system as well as 69 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 strengthening confidence of the voters. In order to ensure the compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order The Chief Election Commissioner of India vigorously pursued the allocation of funds to the manufacturers for the timely manufacture and supply of required quantity of VVPATs to the ECI for ensuring 100% VVPAT coverage at all polling stations. The Election Commission also vigorously reviewed the production capacity of the manufacturers impressing upon them the need to strictly adhere to the schedule by enhancing their manufacturing capacity.
Based on Commission's continuous follow up the funds have since been allocated on 19April2017 amounting to Rs.2616.30 crore for purchase of 16,15,000VVPATs and orders have been issued to the manufacturers. It is pertinent to mention that Rs 1939.95 crore has been sanctioned and released by the Government for the manufacture of M3 EVMs. The manufacturers have committed to manufacture the EVMs and VVPATs and supply to ECI by Sep 2018.
The Commission is committed to using VVPAT machines along with EVMs in all future elections to be conducted under its superintendence and direction for the Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies.
In the All Political Parties Meeting held on 12th May, 2017, the Commission decided to use 100% VVPATs in all future elections. The above decision of the Commission was formally communicated to Chief 70 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 Electoral Officers of all States and Union Territories on 19th September, 2017.
The Commission mandated verificationofVVPATpaper slips of randomly selected 01 polling station in addition to the provisions of Rule 56D of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, as under:
(a) In case of General and Bye-elections to State Legislative Assemblies, verification of VVPAT paper slips of randomly selected 01 polling station per Assembly Constituency.
(b) In case of General and Bye-elections to the House of the People, verification of VVPAT paper slips of randomly selected 01 polling station of each Assembly Segment of the Parliamentary Constituency concerned.
Mandatory verification of VVPAT paper slips has been conducted so far in 792 polling stations and no discrepancy was found in electronic result and paper count.
Conclusion:
As is evident, the EVM used in Indian elections have gone through a long journey of evolution amidst challenges and has emerged as an effective machine of electoral reform over the years since its introduction. It has enhanced public confidence as well as legitimacy of Indian elections in the eyes of the world.
The Indian EVM stands as one of the most credible, non- tamperable and transparent machine amongst all such 71 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 machines used in other parts of the world. Indian EVMs have attracted the attention of many Afro-Asian countries also. Till date, no one could actually demonstrate that EVMs in possession of ECI and used by it, can be tampered with or manipulated. What has been demonstrated or claimed to have been demonstrated is on a privately assembled "look-alike of ECI-EVMs" and not the actual ECI-EVM used by ECI. Recently, on an allegation of EVMs yielding votes for only one political party in Bhind (Madhya Pradesh) and Dholpur (Rajasthan), the ECI promptly conducted an enquiry which found out that such allegations were found to be baseless.
Today, the ECI once again completely reaffirms its faith in the non-tamperability of the EVMs of ECI in view of the technical security features and the stringent administrative protocols and procedural safeguards which are mandatorily to be followed during and after the polls. In conclusion, it will be pertinent to refer to the verdict of the Karnataka High Court in this respect, which observed that EVM in India is a "national pride" and the fact that Indian elections are widely internationally acknowledged as the "Global Gold Standard".
The Commission and electoral system stakeholders have taken a conscious decision that EVM is the right answer to the formidable task of election management and the huge logistical challenges it throws. The ECI hopes that once the VVPATs cover all the polling booths in the 72 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 country, the confidence and transparency will be further enhanced.
The Commission firmly believes that the introduction of VVPAT machines with the EVMs in all future elections will bring utmost transparency and credibility in the EVM-based voting system in our country and conclusively put to rest all misinformed doubts and misgivings regarding these machines.
The Commission will launch a comprehensive, concerted and nation- wide voter education and awareness programme under its flagship SVEEP initiative, to educate, orient and inform the voters about the functioning, usage and advantages of the VVPAT machines and their immense utility in reinforcing the transparency, credibility and authenticity if the voting process. The Commission earnestly solicits the cooperation and collaboration of all the vital stakeholders, particularly the political parties, to join hands in spreading awareness about the advantages of VVPAT machines. The Commission is confident that the collaborative efforts of all the stakeholders in the electoral process will lead to continuous improvements in the electoral management and make our system more transparent, participative, informed and credible.
The Commission firmly believes in an open, constructive and comprehensive dialogue with all crucial stakeholders in the electoral process and the political parties are a critical stakeholder of the democratic edifice in the country. Considering the recent issues regarding use of 73 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 EVMs, the Commission convened an All Party Meeting on 12th May 2017. The objective behind the said meeting was to facilitate threadbare discussions and detailed deliberations amongst the important players in the electoral arena on this vital issue, so that all views and counter-views were placed on the table and thrashed out transparently and cogently.
In All Political Parties Meeting the Commission assured 100% coverage of VVPATs in all future election to the Parliament and State Assembly Elections. In the said meeting the representatives of political parties were informed that the Commission would hold a challenge and offered opportunity to political parties to demonstrate that EVMs used in the recently concluded Assemblies elections were tampered OR that EVMs could be tampered even under the laid down Technical and Administrative Safeguards.
Subsequently, 20th May 2017, the Commission announced the EVM Challenge and sent invitation to all National and State Recognized Political Parties to participate in the Challenge from 3rd June 2017 onwards. Only two Political Parties, namely NCP and CPI(M) submitted their interest in participating the EVM Challenge. However, they did not participate in the Challenge but only expressed their interest in understanding the EVM process. They interacted extensively with TEC of the Commission to clear their doubts. The EVM Challenge concluded on 3rd July 2017.74
KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 Since 12th May 2017, every election to the Parliament and State Assembly Elections has been conducted using VVPAT with EVM and the Commission is committed to 100% deployment of VVPATs in all future elections to Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies. The Commission requests all citizens and stakeholders to remain aware, vigilant and alert about our electoral processes and facilitate the Commission in discharging its Constitutional mandate of conducting free and fair elections in the country. [Emphasis Supplied]"
ix) The Apex Court also reiterated that tampering of EVMs is not possible. The election petitioner (PW.1) during his cross-examination admitted that he does not know that it is proved in the Supreme Court that EVMs cannot be tampered.
x) In the light of the aforesaid admission, the principle laid down by the Gujarat High Court and observations made by the Apex Court, the allegation of the election petitioner that EVMs were tampered cannot be believed. He cannot make allegations of tampering of EVMs on assumptions and presumptions and file the present election petition on the said ground.
xi) As discussed above, both PW.1 and CW.1 categorically admitted that Government Junior College, Dharmapuri is distribution and reception centre and the Engineering Centre is counting centre. The 75 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 entire process of verification, loading, transportation and unloading took place till 8.30 A.M. on 08.12.2018. The EVMs and election material were stored in the Strong Room at Engineering College. The strong room is locked and sealed in the presence of contesting candidates and their agents. Their signatures were obtained on the seals. Throughout the said process, CW.1 and Election Observer, an IAS Officer, were present and contesting candidates and their chief election agents were also present during the entire process. The strong room is under the surveillance of Central Police Force day and night.
xii) The election petitioner, his election agent, executing agents were present at the counting centre. The RO of subject constituency and an Election Observer and also the District Election Authority allowed them inside the counting hall after verification their I.D. Cards.
Thereafter, the RO and an Election Observer allowed all the contesting candidates including the election petitioner and also their agents to the strong room, where EVMs and VVPATs were stored, where they have observed the seal labels on the strong room door and also its lock and after their satisfaction only, the strong room was opened in their presence which was fully video-graphed by the Election Authority. After concluding all rounds of counting including the postal ballots, 76 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 respondent No.1 secured 441 more votes than the election petitioner. Then the election petitioner also requested the RO to count VVPAT slips of four polling stations of his choice. Accordingly, RO counted VVPAT slips of four polling stations No.17, 47, 92 and 174 before the election petitioner and his agents under the observation of an Election Observer, wherein the VVPAT slips were tallied with the votes polled in EVMs. The election petitioner was also fully satisfied after the recounting of the said VVPAT slips which were tallied with the polled votes in EVM and, as such, the election agent of the petitioner, Mr. NVS Lalith Babu, put his signatures on the proceedings of Returning Officer by accepting counting of VVPATs. Thereafter, the RO declared the election result wherein respondent No.1 was declared as elected candidate.
xiii) It is also relevant to note that PW.1 himself admitted that recounting of VVPAT slips in four polling booths were undertaken by CW.1. In fact, the said fact was suppressed by him in the election petition.
xiv) It is relevant to note that during cross-examination, Returning Officer (CW.1) admitted that report No.22 is prepared by him after receiving Form - 17A from all the polling stations. During counting of 77 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 votes, if in a particular EVM, the total number of votes do not tally, Form - 17A, then he has to verify, find out the discrepancy, report to the Election Commission of India and take action as per the guidelines. The election petitioner asked to count VVPATs in all the 269 polling stations after 13th round of counting. On considering the same, Election Observer instructed him to select any four polling stations in which he got doubt and then such four polling stations VVPAT slips can be counted. On that, the election petitioner selected four (04) polling stations and VVPAT slips in those four polling stations were counted and found no difference with the number of votes polled.
xv) In the light of the above, the election petitioner now cannot claim that EVMs were tampered, number of polled etc., were not tallied and there is manipulation of record etc. The said allegations are baseless.
xvi) The election petitioner also tried to prove the said difference of votes by cross-examining CW.1 at length on Exs.X1 to X8. However, CW.1 categorically admitted that he has followed the entire procedure with regard to commissioning of EVMs, distribution of election material including EVMs to all 269 polling stations, collection of information/data from time to time from the polling officers, preparation 78 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 of reports, collection of election material at the receiving centre, sealing of the same, transmitting the same to the counting centre, keeping the same in the strong room, sealing the same in accordance with law. The election petitioner failed to elicit anything contra to prove that the Returning Officer and the District Election Officer manipulated the record, tampered the EVMs in order to help respondent No.1 - returned candidate, to declare him as returned candidate. The said allegations of the election petitioner are false and baseless.
xvii) During cross-examination, PW.1 himself admitted that the report dated 11.12.2018 of the Returning Officer regarding counting of VVPATs in four counting stations is correct and that Ex.A4 was furnished to him on 08.12.2018.
xviii) The election petitioner (PW.1) during cross-examination categorically admitted as follows:
"It is true that in the Election Petition, I have not stated that the Returning Officer and Mr. Sarath have taken undue advantage of their official position to cause benefit to respondent No.1 and thereby materially affect the election as now stated in para 11 of my chief examination affidavit. The EVMs were tampered and hacked by the Assistant Returning Officer, Mr. Venkat Reddy with the help of 79 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 technicians. I have definite information about the said tampering. I have made a complaint to the Election Authority about the Assistant Returning Officer with regard to the tampering of EVMs. I have not filed copy of the said complaint in this Election Petition. In para 15 of my Election Petition, I have not mentioned about the involvement of Assistant Returning Officer and about the complaint given against him to the Election Authority/District Collector. It is my assumption that EVMs were tampered and manipulated when they were kept in Govt. Junior College, Dharmapuri since it is not a notified place. I or my election agent have not seen the said tampering and manipulations since we were not allowed to stay at Govt. Junior College, Dharmapuri."
xix) In the light of the aforesaid admissions, the election petitioner herein cannot allege tampering of EVMs, manipulation of record and non-tallying of votes polled etc. xx) As contended by respondent No.1, the rights created under the Act, 1951 are neither common law rights nor civil rights. It is a statutory right and it should be decided within the four corners of the said statutory rights. Therefore, the election petitioner who alleges tampering of EVMs, manipulation of record etc., has to plead and prove 80 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 the same by producing cogent evidence. In the present case, except examining himself, he has not examined any other witness including any of his polling agents from whom he received numerous complaints with regard to non-tallying of votes etc. He failed to elicit anything useful to him. Thus, the election petitioner herein utterly failed in pleading and proving the aforesaid allegations and the corrupt practice which said to have been materially affected the election. He has to establish the grounds mentioned in Sections - 100 and 101 of the Act, 1951 to declare the election to be void and to declare him to have been elected.
xxi) In Harsh Kumar v. Bhagwan Sahai Rawat 9, the Apex Court held that the success of a winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with. The scheme of Section - 100 of the Act, especially Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) thereof clearly prescribes that in spite of the availability of grounds contemplated by Sub-clauses (i) to
(iv) of Clause (d), the election of a returned candidate shall not be voided unless and until it is proved that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a returned candidate was materially affected. It was further held that the burden of proof of corrupt practice is very heavy on the person who alleges the same. The will of the people cannot be lightly set 9 . (2003) 7 SCC 709 81 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 aside, though, of course, it is necessary to protect the purity of the election. In order to succeed on the ground of corrupt practice, the election petitioner had to lead cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence. The standard of proof required is not of preponderance of probability, but proof beyond doubt.
xxii) In Chanda Singh v. Choudhary Shiv Ram Verma 10, the Apex Court held that recount of votes is not automatic, and it cannot be ordered in a routine and grounds must be definite and clearly stated. Hesitant and bald averments revealing vague fears and blurred anxieties do not make the statutory requirements.
xxiii) In the present case, the election petitioner himself admitted that it was his assumption that there was tampering of EVMs and manipulation of record.
xxiv) In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 11, the Apex Court considered expression material facts and particulars in terms of Section - 83 (1) of the Act, 1951.
xxv) In C.P.John v. Babu M. Palissery 12 and Markio Tado v. Takam Sorang 13, the Apex Court held that the election petitioner has to 10 . (1975) 4 SCC 393 11 . 1986 (Supp) SCC 315 82 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 plead the material facts precisely and prove the same by producing cogent evidence. In the present case, the election petitioner failed to prove the said allegations/corrupt practices by producing cogent evidence.
xxvi) In R. Narayanan v. S. Semmalal 14, J. Raghava Rao v. B. Ch. Garataiah 15 and Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao 16, the Apex Court held that recounting of votes cannot be ordered in a routine manner unless and until the election petitioner makes out the grounds contemplated under the Rules, 1961 for recounting. As discussed supra, the election petitioner herein failed to make out any case for recount of votes.
xxvii) It is relevant to note that the election petitioner herein has filed I.A. No.2 of 2022 seeking to order for recount of ballot papers in the election held to the Telangana State Legislative Assembly on 07.12.2018 from 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Legislative Assembly Constituency of Jagityal District in Telangana State. As discussed supra, the election petitioner failed to make out any ground for recount of VVPAT slips in respect of 12 . (2014) 10 SCC 547 13 . (2012) 3 SCC 236 14 . (1980) 2 SCC 537 15 . LAWS (APH)-2002-4-16 16 . (2010) 1 SCC 466 83 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 all the polling booths of the subject constituency in terms of Rules, 1961. Therefore, the said IA is liable to be dismissed.
xxviii) In M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy 17 and Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari 18, the Apex Court held that the evidence shall confine to the pleadings.
xxix) In Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari 19, the Apex Court held that non-compliance with Act, 1951 or Rules, 1961 would not vitiate the election unless it is shown that the result is materially affected under Section - 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951, and the same was followed by the High Court of Gujarat in Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod v. Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav, Bhupendrasinh Manubhai Chudasama 20.
xxx) In Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh v. Sub-Divisional Officer Hilsa-cum-Returning Officer 21, the Apex Court held that a candidate is regarded as duly elected only after declaration in Form -21C or Form - 21D is made under Rule - 64 of the Rules, 1961, until such declaration is made, mere announcement of the Returning Officer that 17 . (2004) 6 SCC 341 18 . (2014) 5 SCC 313 19 . (2012) 3 SCC 314 20 . R/EP/3/2018, decided on 12.05.2020 21 . (1985) 4 SCC 194 84 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 the candidate has been elected or grant of certificate in Form - 22 under Rule - 66 of the Rules, 1961, would not confer on him status of elected candidate. Election process comes to an end only after declaration in Form - 21C as the case may be made under Rule - 64 of the Rules, 1961. Whereas, in the present case, the said process was completed and respondent No.1 was declared as returned candidate.
xxxi) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the election petitioner herein failed to prove the aforesaid allegations of tampering of EVMs, manipulation of record and non-tallying of votes polled etc., and corrupt practices in terms of Section - 123 of the Act, 1951. These issues are accordingly answered against the election petitioner herein.
19. Issue Nos.(x) and (xi): Whether the petitioner is entitled for costs?, and to What relief?
i) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the election petitioner is not entitled for costs and for any other relief. Therefore, both the issues are held against the election petitioner herein.
20. As discussed above, respondent No.1 declared as returned candidate from 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency to the Legislative Assembly General Elections held on 17.12.2018 with 441 85 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 votes majority. If the difference of 132 votes is deducted, still respondent No.1 would have 309 votes majority. Thus, the election petitioner herein failed to prove that the election of respondent No.1 is materially affected and that there was corrupt practice in terms of Section - 123 of the Act, 1951.
21. It is trite to note that the Act, 1951 and the Rules, 1961 contemplates procedure for conduct of elections in a fair and transparent manner, filing of election petitions etc. The Election Commission of India is obligated to conduct elections in a fair and transparent manner in terms of Article - 324 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it has been taking much care by providing machinery, issuing guidelines from time to time. It is also appointing Civil Servants as Election Observers.
22. Gaining confidence of the people by a contesting candidate and succeeding in an election is not easy job. Therefore, success of a winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with. The will of the people cannot be lightly set aside. At the same time, it is necessary to protect the purity of the election. Therefore, the election petitioner has to lead cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence to prove 86 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 such allegations. In the present case, the election petitioner herein failed to plead and prove the same.
23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Election Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
24. The present Election Petition is accordingly dismissed and so also I.A. No.2 of 2022. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
25. With regard to irregularities committed by the Officials concerned in maintaining, safe keeping of election material including EVMs, double sealing, post election, post counting of votes in strong room and non-counting of two missing votes, this Court has already directed the Election Commission of India to conduct an inquiry and submit report. Accordingly, inquiry was conducted and report was submitted. It is marked as Ex.C1. Therefore, the Election Commission of India shall take necessary action in accordance with law pursuant to Ex.C1-report.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Election Petition, stands closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 1st December, 2023 87 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For Petitioner:
PW.1: Mr. Adluri Laxman Kumar PW.2: -- (Eschewed and examined as CW.1) For Respondents:
RW.1: Mr. Koppula Eshwar Court Witness:
CW.1: Sri M. Bhikshapathi
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
Petitioner
Exhibit Date Description of document
Ex.A1 12.11.2018 Copy of Notification of the Election Commission of
India containing 3 sheets
Ex.A2 19.11.2018 Copy of the Memo issued by the Office of the Chief
Electoral Officer, State of Telangana given by CEO, State of Telangana containing 2 sheets Ex.A3 20.01.2019 Copy of the reply furnished by the Returning Officer, 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency issued under RTI Act, 2005 containing 2 sheets Ex.A4 08.12.2018 Copy of the report No.22 furnished by the Returning Officer, 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency containing 4 sheets Ex.A5 11.12.2018 Copy of the Form No.20, final result sheet furnished by the Returning Officer, 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency Ex.A6 12.12.2018 Copy of the Gazette Notification issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana, containing 3 sheets Ex.A7 11.12.2018 Copy of the letter addressed to the Returning Officer by the petitioner Ex.A8 08.01.2019 Copy of the reply of the Returning Officer issued under RTI along with Report No.22/Voter Turnout Report dated 08.11.2018 from the Returning Officer to the Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India containing 28 sheets 88 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 Respondents Exhibit Date Description of document Copy of Report/Proceedings of the Returning Officer Ex.B1 11.12.2018 regarding counting of VVPATS in four counting stations Ex.B2 11.12.2018 Copy of Authorization to the Returning Officer, 022- Dharmapuri LAC for the declaration of the result. Ex.B3 08.11.2018 Copy of Instructions issued by the Office of the CEO of Telangana regarding reports and returns vide Memo No.3684/Elections.D/2018-1 containing report No.10 at page No.10 Ex.B4 30.11.2008 Copy of Report No.10 prepared by the Returning Officer sent to the CEO and Principal Secretary to Government, TS.
Ex.B5 11.12.2018 Copy of letter addressed by the Petitioner to the ECI requesting for physical verification of counting of VVPAT Machines in 022-Dharmapuri LAC Ex.B6 07.09.2022 Attested True Copy of information furnished by the PIO-cum-Deputy Tahsildar, Dharmapuri Mandal to the Election Agent of TRS under RTI Act, 2005 with regard to Report-22 (Voters Turn Out Report) Ex.B7 03.05.2022 Attested True Copy of Letter No.E/598/2023 addressed by PIO-cum-Dy.Tahsildar to the applicant, Mr. A. Srikanth Reddy, DCMS Chairman furnishing the information under RTI Act, 2005 with regard to availability of more than one Report NO.22 (Voter Turnout Report) in respect of 022-Dharmapuri LAC Ex.B8 08.11.2018 Attested True Copy of Report-22 of the Returning Officer, 022-Dharmapuri (SC) LAC sent to the ECI, New Delhi, CEO, Telangana and the District Election Officer and Collector, Jagtial District Ex.B9 08.12.2018 Attested True Copy of Report No.22 of the Returning Officer, 022-Dharmapur (SC), LAC sent to the CEO, Telangana State and the District Election Officer & Collector, Jagtial District Ex.B10 11.12.2018 Attested True Copy of Report No.28 of the Returning Officer, 022-Dharmapuri (SC) LAC Ex.B11 08.01.2018 Attested True Copy Letter No.E/255/2018 addressed by the office of the Returning Officer, 022- Dharmapuri (SC) LAC to the petitioner furnishing the information sought under RTI Act, 2005.
89 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 X-Series Exhibit Date Description of document Ex.X1 -- Sealed cover opened before the Commissioner on
26.04.2023 containing attested copies of Form 17A of Polling Stations 1 to 50 Ex.X2 -- Cover containing attested copies of Form 17A of Polling Stations 51 to 100 Ex.X3 -- Cover containing attested co32pies of Form 17A of Polling Stations 101 to 150 Ex.X4 -- Cover containing attested copies of Form 17A of Polling Stations 151 to 200 Ex.X5 -- Cover containing attested copies of Form 17A of Polling Stations 201 to 269 Ex.X6 -- Cover containing attested copies of account of votes recorded in Part 1 of Form 17C maintained under Rule 49S Ex.X7 -- Cover containing attested copies of account of votes recorded in Part 2 of Form 17C maintained under Rule 56C of Conduct of Election Rules. (Polling Station Nos.1 to 269 and postal ballot account.) Ex.X8 -- Cover containing attested copies of Election Commission Notification Notifying the place for preserving the EVMs of 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Legislative Assembly Constituency as Dr.VRK College of Engineering and Technology, Nookapally Village, Jagtial District containing 5 sets of proceedings of the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana State vide Memo No.6029 Elec.D/2018-6, dated 06.12.2018 with regard to subject of approval of setting up of counting centers and approval.
Ex.X9 17.04.2023 Statement of the Returning Officer marked as Annexure 9A in the Report dated 18.04.2023 submitted by Inquiry Committee of ECI Ex.X10 -- Signatures of the Returning Officer at page Nos.10 and 11 in the photographs annexed to the report of ECI dated 18.04.2023 90 KL,J E.P.No.12 of 2019 C-Series Exhibit Date Description of document Ex.C1 -- Entire report of the Election Commission of India _________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 1st December, 2023 Mgr