Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy, ... vs Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1525 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                       E.P.No.1 of 2017
ORDER:

This Court has heard Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Satya Prasad, learned

senior counsel on the issue of the trial/evidence in this case.

The Election Petition was filed in 2017. The term of

elected body is for six years, so it would expire in 2023, as per

the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that he

should be allowed to introduce the evidence of the petitioner.

Learned counsel points out that an affidavit in lieu of the

chief examination has been filed and that he also moved an

application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in

I.A.No.1 of 2022 to record the evidence of first witness for the

petitioner. This is opposed by the respondents.

In reply to this, learned senior counsel pointed out that

the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the main

election petition itself. This application was numbered as

I.A.No.2 of 2018 and after hearing both the learned counsel,

the application was allowed. Against the same, an Special

Leave Petition was filed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India by its order dated 14.02.2020 granted stay of operation

of the impugned order (for amendment). Learned senior

counsel therefore submits that commencing a trial at this

stage is not called for as a substantial amendment to the

election petition is sought to be made by the amendment

application which is now stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India. It is therefore contended on behalf of the

respondents that there cannot be two different trials and that

the Court should pronounce final orders of all issues.

Therefore, it is submitted that unless and until the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India decides on the amendment

application, allowing the trial to commence is not really called

for or warranted in the circumstances. It is stated that the

respondents would be prejudiced if the trial is allowed to

proceed in bits and pieces.

After considering the submissions, this Court is of the

opinion that the petitioner has come before this Court and

filed an election petition raising certain clear and specific

grounds. The affidavit in lieu of chief examination which is

now filed is also limited to the grounds that are raised in the

original election petition and relates to the manner in which

the nomination of the respondents was accepted about the

counting of the votes, improper accounting of the votes etc.

The amendment application IA.No.2 of 2018 which was

allowed and which is the subject matter of the challenge in

the Special Leave Petition relates to the failure of the

respondent to disclose his involvement in certain criminal

cases and the related issues. In fact, paras 8(a), (b), (c) and

(d), which are sought to be added by the amendment

application are essentially related to the criminal case filed

against the respondent. It is this amendment application

which has been allowed by this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2018. It

relates therefore only to non-disclosure of the criminal case

C.C.No.370 of 2012. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has

stayed the "operation of the impugned order" passed in

I.A.No.2 of 2018 only. This Court has to agree with the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court did not stay the entire trial or the

proceedings in E.P.No.1 of 2017.

This Court also notices the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd. Akbar v. Ashok

Sahu and others1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

expressed its anguish at the delay in the disposal of the

election petitions in general. It was noticed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that invariably the resolution of election

disputes takes a long time in most of the cases and that very

rarely an election dispute gets resolved during the tenure of

the declared candidate.

Keeping in view this pronouncement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the facts in the present case, this Court

is of the opinion that the recording of evidence in this matter

need not be postponed till the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

decides the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by

this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2018. The issues on which evidence

is now being introduced do not relate to the pendency of the

(2015) 14 SCC 519

criminal case CC.No.370 of 2012 or the failure of the

respondent to disclose the same. Even if questions relating

to the criminal case etc., are raised an objection can always

be raised during the evidence.

A perusal of the evidence affidavit in chief shows that

the evidence is sought to be introduced on the matters which

are raised/pleaded in the original election petition as it is

filed. The issues raised in the amendment application are not

being raised by the petitioner for now. Therefore, this Court

is of the opinion that the trial can commence and need not be

postponed.

List the election petition on 31.03.2022.

_________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

Date : 28.03.2022.

KLP