Kantekar Madhumohan vs The Municipal Election Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 2894 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                 WRIT PETITION No.22479 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 02.09.2021

passed in I.A.No.787 of 2021 in EOP No.121 of 2020 by the Principal

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar - cum - Election

Tribunal constituted under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for

short, 'the Act') allowing the amendment to the said Election Petition, as

illegal and contrary to the Telangana Municipalities (Election Petitions)

Rules, 2020 (for short, 'the Rules') issued in G.O.Ms.No.30 Municipal

Administration and Urban Development(MA) Department, dated

11.02.2020 and to set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner,

learned Govt.Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban

Development appearing for Respondent No.1, Sri P.Sudheer Rao, learned

Standing counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4, Sri N.Praveen Kumar,

learned standing counsel for Respondent Nos.5, 11 and 12, Sri

M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 and 7,Sri

Gaddam Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.9 and10 and

Sri Vijay B.Paropakari, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.13 to 15.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE

i) The Respondent Nos.13 to 15 herein have filed the subject

Election Petition under Rule 3 of the Rules, to declare action of the 11th

Respondent herein in allowing the Respondent Nos.6 to 10 (8th

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

Respondent died) herein to be ex-officio Members of Thukkuguda

Municipal Council, as illegal; to declare the participation of the

Respondent Nos.6 to 10 herein in the election of Chairperson and Vice

Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council, as void and illegal; to

declare the election of the Returned Candidates, Chairperson of

Thukkuguda Municipal Council i.e. 5th Respondent/petitioner herein, as

void; to declare the election of the Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal

Council whole as void and order for fresh election.

ii) The Petitioner herein/the 5th Respondent therein had filed

counter in the said Election Petition. Thereafter, the Respondent Nos.13 to

15 herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.787 of 2021 in EOP

No.121 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short, 'the CPC') before the Election

Tribunal, seeking permission of the Tribunal, 1) to add the following at

the end of paragraph No.8 "that the 8th Respondent opted and chose to

become Ex-Officio Member of Badangpet Municipality, which is evident

from entry in the Inward Register dated 25.01.2020 vide Sl.No.125 and

Letter No.125, copy of the same is filed herewith.", 2) to amend the

Election Petition by adding after paragraph No.9 as 9(a) "Article 243 of

the Constitution of India deals with composition of Municipalities apart

from directly elected candidates, Members of House of Commons,

Members of Legislative Council and Members of Council of States can

cast vote, in terms of Sub-Rule iii) a Member of Legislative Council or a

Member of Council of States is eligible to cast vote in any Municipality,

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

provided he is enlisted as a voter in the said constituency. In the instant

case, Respondent Nos.9 and 10 are not enlisted as voters in any part of

Maheshwaram Constituency within whose territory Thukkuguda

Municipality is located. The Respondent No.12 therefore, fell in serious

error in permitting the Respondent Nos.9 and 10 to cast vote, their votes

have to be eschewed." and 3) to amend the prayer by deleting Paragraph

No.5 in the Prayer of Election Petition in toto and substitute with "to

declare that the second highest votes secured candidate as Chair person

of Tukkuguda Municipality".

iii) The said petition vide I.A.No.787 of 2021 was filed on the

ground that the amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature and the

same is in accordance with the pleadings, no prejudice would be caused to

the Respondents therein and by virtue of the amendment, the nature of the

Election Petition will not change.

iv) The Petitioner herein opposed the said I.A.No.787 of 2021 on

the following ground that the Election Tribunal does not have the power to

entertain an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, and the

Election Tribunal has to enquire into Election Petitions by following the

procedure laid down under the Act and the amendment would change the

nature of the very Election Petition itself.

v) The Election Tribunal had allowed the said I.A.No.787 of 2021

holding that the amendment sought by the Petitioners therein is only

clarificatory and does not change the nature of the dispute or the cause of

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

action. No new case was introduced and such amendment would cause no

prejudice to the Respondents.

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE Petitioner:

i) The Election Tribunal, while dealing with the Election Petition

filed under Rule 3 of the Rules, has to follow the procedure laid down

under the Rules, while conducting enquiry in Election Petition.

ii) Rule 10 of the Rules, deals with the power of Election Tribunal

and as per the same, the Election Tribunal shall have the power which is

vested in a Court under the CPC, and shall be deemed to be a civil Court

while trying a suit in respect of the matters specifically mentioned therein.

Therefore, except the said matters, the Election Tribunal cannot invoke the

other powers under the CPC including entertaining applications under

Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

iii) The Petitioners in the Election Petition have not made all the

contesting candidates as parties to the Election Petition by names allowing

the amendment, would change the nature of the very Election Petition

which is not permissible under law.

iv) As per the Rules, the Election Petition has to be filed within 30

days from the date of declaration of result of the election and the present

amendment is not permissible as it is beyond the said limitation period.

v) Reliance was placed on the principles laid down in Kummari

Ramulu Vs. Gangaram Penta Reddy1, Chaluvadi Hanumayamma Vs.

(2004) 3 ALT 788 (DB)

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

Sandrapati Jainabee2, Rajender Singh Vs. Smt. Usha Rani3, Muniraju

Gowda P.M. Vs. Munirathna4, Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P.Joshi5

and K.D.Deshmukh Vs. Amritlal Jayaswal6,

vi) The Election Tribunal, without considering the said contentions

and the principles laid down in the above said judgments, allowed the

petition in I.A.No.787 of 2021 filed for amending the Election Petition.

vii) Therefore, with the said contentions, he sought to set aside the

impugned order.

5. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESOPNDENT NOs.13 TO 15

i) The amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature. There is no

change in the nature of the Election Petition by the amendment.

ii) No prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner herein.

iii) Rule 3 of the Rules, applies to the Election Petition but not to an

amendment application. Therefore, Rule 3 of the Rules cannot be pressed

into service.

iv) The amendment sought is only a consequential relief but cause

of action and the main prayer in the Election Petition remains the same.

vi) The Court below considered all the said aspects, also the

principle laid down by the Apex Court and allowed the said application.

vii) The impugned order is a reasoned order and therefore, there is

no error in it.

(2003) 5 ALT 741

(1984) 3 SCC 339

(2020) 10 SCC 192

(2011) 11 SCC 786

AIR 1992 SCC 164

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

viii) With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the Writ

Petition.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and

Urban Development appearing for Respondent No.1, Sri M.Rajender

Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.6 and 7 and Sri

Gaddam Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent

Nos.9 and 10 adopted the arguments of Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned

Counsel for the Petitioner herein. Sri P.Sudheer Rao, learned counsel

appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that the 2nd

Respondent is only a formal party, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th Respondent would submit that the

5th Respondent is also a formal party.

7. In view of the above said submissions, the issues that fall for

consideration before this Court are as follows:-

1) Whether the Election Tribunal has the power to invoke procedure laid down under the CPC to its entirety or only to the aspects which are specifically mentioned under Rule 10 of the Rules?

and

2) Whether the impugned order suffers from any irregularity?

8.CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT

i) The Government of Telangana, vide G.O.Ms.No.30 Municipal

Administration and Urban Development (MA) Department, dated

11.02.2020 invoking powers under Section 238(1) read with Section 233

of the Act and in supersession of the Telangana Municipalities (Decision

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

of Election Disputes) Rules, 1967 issued in G.O.Ms.No.1118, Municipal

Administration, dated 17.08.1967, made the Rules relating to the disposal

of Election Petitions for any election held under the said Act.

ii) Rule 3 of the said Rules, deals with filing of the Election

Petition. As per the said Rule, the Election Petition shall be presented

within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election.

iii) Rule 9 of the Rules deals with the procedure before Election

Tribunal which is relevant and extracted below:-

Rule 9: Procedure before the Election Tribunal:-

(1) The Election Tribunal shall, as soon as may be, cause a copy of the petition to be served on each Respondent and the Returning Officer appointed at the time of such election and the District Election Authority. Copies shall also be affixed on the notice boards of the Election Tribunal and of the concerned municipal office. Every election, petition shall be inquired into by the Election Tribunal as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2) It shall be necessary for the Election Tribunal to make a memorandum of the substances of the evidence of any witness examined by it.

Provided that the Election Tribunal shall have the discretion to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine any witness if it is of the opinion that his evidence is not material for the decision of the petition or that the party tendering such evidence is doing so on frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the proceedings.

3) The provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall subject to the provisions of these Rules be deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition.

4) The Election Tribunal shall dismiss an Election Petition which does not comply with these Rules;

Provided that any candidate not included as a Respondent shall upon an application made to the Election Tribunal within fourteen days after affixture of the petition on the notice board of the Election Tribunal as referred in sub-rule(1) shall be entitled to be added as a Respondent on furnishing the security deposit referred in Rule(8).

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

iv) Rule 10 of the Rules deals with the power of Election Tribunal

which is relevant and is extracted below:-

The Election Tribunal shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and shall be deemed to be a civil Court while trying a suit in respect of the following matters:-

a) discovery and inspection;

b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and requiring the Petitioner for deposit of their expenses;

c) compelling the production of documents;

d) examining witness on oath;

e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit;

f) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses; and

g) summon and examine suo-motu any person whose evidence appears to it to be material;

v) Rule 20 of the said Rules, which is extracted as follows:-

"Grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected; if any person who has filed a petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claims a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and the election Tribunal is of opinion:-

a) that in fact the Petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes; or

b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices, the Petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes;

The Election Tribunal shall, after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void, declare the Petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected.

9. As stated above, the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 herein have filed

the above said Election Petition vide EOP No.121 of 2020, to declare

action of the 11th Respondent herein in allowing the Respondent Nos.6 to

10 (8th Respondent died) herein to be ex-officio Members of Thukkuguda

Municipal Council, as illegal; to declare participation of the Respondent

Nos.6 to 10 herein in the election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

Thukkuguda Municipal Council, as void and illegal; to declare the

election of the Returned Candidates, Chairperson of Thukkuguda

Municipal Council i.e. 5th Respondent/petitioner herein, as void; to

declare the election of Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal Council

whole as void and order for fresh election.

. 10. An application vide I.A.No.787 of 2021 in EOP No.121 of 2020

under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, was filed

seeking permission of the Election Tribunal, to make certain amendments

in the prayer of the Election Petition as mentioned above.

11. As stated above, Rule 9 of the Rules deal with the Procedure

before the Election Tribunal and as per the same, every Election Petition

shall be inquired into by the Election Tribunal 'as nearly as may be' in

accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the

CPC. As per Rule 10 of the Rules, the Election Tribunal shall have the

powers vested in a Court under the CPC, and shall be deemed to be a civil

Court while trying a suit in respect of the matters mentioned as 'a' to 'g'

therein.

12. Referring to the same, learned counsel for the Petitioner would

submit that the Election Tribunal has to confine its powers only to the

matters 'a' to 'g' of Rule 10 of the Rules, but cannot exercise its powers

and entertain an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

Election Tribunal cannot follow the procedure laid down in the CPC, in its

entirety while trying an Election Petition.

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

13. The said issue is no longer res-integra. The said issue fell for

consideration in C.Maniyamma Vs. Junior Civil Judge, Narayanapet,

Dist.Mahaboobnagar7 wherein it was held that an Election Petition shall

be enquired into by the Election Tribunal 'as nearly as may be', in

accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the

CPC. In the said case, the Court had permitted the amendment under

Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

14. In Kummari Ramulu (supra), while dealing with the petition

of Sarpanch, this Court held that only certain powers of the Civil Court are

conferred on the Election Tribunal, but not all powers and that the powers

not mentioned in the Rules, cannot be exercised by the Election Tribunal.

The Division Bench further held that the power to permit addition of a

party after the period of limitation is such a power that can be exercised

only when it is specifically conferred on the Tribunal and accordingly, the

application filed seeking substitution of a party in place of the impleaded

party was dismissed.

15. In Jambarthi Kasim @ Kashiram Vs. Bommidi

Jagannatham8, while dealing with the Election Petition of Sarpanch

under the Rules, it was held that when the provisions of the CPC are made

applicable to certain limited aspects, and the Rules, stipulated the

procedure as regards the other matters, the contention that the CPC in its

entirety, applies to the proceedings initiated under the Rules, cannot be

accepted.

1998(5) ALD 361

2008 (2) ALT 22

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

16. In M.Ganganna Vs. A.Chitma Guravaiah9, this Court, while

dealing with an Election Petition of a Sarpanch under the Rules, held that

the said Rules postulate that every Election Petition shall be enquired into

by the Election Tribunal in accordance with the procedure applicable

under the CPC and it is now well settled that all the subsequent

amendments to CPC get incorporated into Rule 11 though the amendment

to Order XVIII Rule 4 was not there when the Rules were made. While

holding accordingly, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging an

order of rejection passed by the Election Tribunal whereby an

interlocutory application filed under Section 151 of the CPC praying the

Election Tribunal to set aside the sworn affidavit of the 1st Respondent

was rejected.

17. In Smt.Lagudu Amiradha Vs. Smt. Gorrepotu

Chellayamma10, this Court held that Order XIV of the CPC is applicable

to Election Petitions being tried by Election Tribunals and that settlement

of issues or framing of points for consideration is an essential step in an

enquiry of Election Petition for the reason that parties should know on

what questions in controversy, necessary evidence may have to be let in.

18. In Kailash Vs. Nanhku11, the Apex Court, while dealing with

the facts of the said case, held that election of the appellant therein to the

Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council was under challenge as per Section 80

of the Representation of People Act, 1951. It was held that the power of

2003(5) ALD 231

2004(4) ALT 197

(2005) 4 SCC 480

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

the Court to extend time for filing of the written statement in an Election

Petition is not circumscribed by Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and the proviso

thereto, as amended. The High Court denied the prayer for extension of

time as it felt that it had no power to do so as the High Court was bound

by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC and the proviso thereto as amended. The

Supreme Court considered the fact that the written statement was already

on record and issued directions for its being taken on record, subject to

payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the election Petitioner. Referring the

said facts, the Apex Court held as under:-

"In case of conflict between the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Rules framed there under or the Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of the power conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution on the one hand, and the Rules of procedure contained in CPC on the other hand, the former shall prevail over the latter."

The Apex Court also placed reliance in an unreported decision in

W.P.No.1145 of 1972 rendered by this Court on 19.10.1973, wherein, this

Court held that the Tribunal was justified in invoking Order IX Rule 9 of

the CPC and setting aside the order of dismissal of the Election Petition

filed under the Act, before the Election Tribunal.

19. In Merugu Kousalya Vs.Thadakamalla Hima Bindu12,

referring to the facts, principle laid down in all the above said judgments

and also while examining the facts of the said case where the Court below

dismissed the application filed by the Respondents therein seeking to set

aside the ex parte order, held that if it is open to the Tribunal to set a

Respondent ex parte for not filing a counter, the power to set aside the ex

2018(1) ALD 33

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

parte order also inheres in the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal, which

has power to set the Respondent ex parte, will certainly have the power to

entertain an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code. The Apex

Court further held that the Tribunal was not justified in not invoking Order

IX Rule 7 of the Code and in refusing to set aside the ex parte order.

20. In the said case, by referring the principle laid down by the

Apex Court in Kailash (supra), it was held that there is no Rule which is

in conflict with the provisions of the CPC. Therefore, the Election

Tribunal can exercise the powers conferred in it under the said Act, in the

absence of conflict with the CPC.

21. In Chaluvadi Hanumayamma (supra), the Petitioner therein

had filed a petition to dismiss the Election Petition on the ground that the

Election Petitioner miserably failed to mention the material facts which

are to be stated as per Rule 3(2) of the Rules. The said decision is not

applicable to the present case.

22. In Rajender Singh (supra), the Apex Court, while examining

the facts of the said case wherein true copies mixed up with incorrect

copies of petition, Respondent therein not obliged to select the correct

copy out of the mixed lot, in the absence of the proof that the Respondent

received the correct copy, benefit of doubt cannot be given to the

Petitioner and that one page missing in the Election Petition but present in

the copy, held that the Court cannot allow amendment of petition, and

further held that in Election Petition procedural requirements must be

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

mandatorily complied with. The said decision is also not applicable to the

case on hand.

23. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court,

it is relevant to note that as per Rule 9 of the Rules, every Election Petition

shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal 'as nearly as may' be in

accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of the suits under the

CPC. As per Rule 10 of the Rules, the Election Tribunal shall be deemed

to be a civil Court while trying a suit in respect of the matters mentioned

as 'a' to 'g' as stated above. Thus, the said Rules do not contain any Rule

which is 'in conflict' with the provisions of the C.P.C. The Apex Court in

Kailash (supra) held that when there is no Rule which is 'in conflict' with

the provisions of the C.P.C., the Election Tribunal can exercise power

conferred by the Rules as well as the provisions of the CPC.

24. In the present case also, the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 herein

have filed the above said petition vide I.A.No.787 of 2021 in EOP No.121

of 2020 before the Court below under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section

151 of the CPC before the Election Tribunal, seeking permission of the

Tribunal, to bring in the above mentioned amendments. The main prayer

seeking to declare the election of Chairperson of Thukkuguda Municipal

Council is intact. There is no change in the nature of the main Election

Petition by virtue of allowing the said amendment. Therefore, according to

this Court, the procedure laid down under Rules, 2018 is not 'in conflict'

with the provisions of the CPC. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

that the Election Tribunal cannot exercise its powers under CPC to its

entirety while enquiring into the Election Petition is not sustainable.

25. It is relevant to note that as per Rule 20 of the Rules, if any

person who has filed a petition has, in addition to calling in question the

election of the returned candidate, claims a declaration that he himself or

any other candidate has been duly elected and the election Tribunal is of

opinion that in fact the Petitioner or such other candidate received a

majority of the valid votes or that but for the votes obtained by the

returned candidate by corrupt practices, the Petitioner or such other

candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes, the Election

Tribunal shall, after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be

void, declare the Petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to

have been duly elected.

26. In fact, according to this Court, the amendment sought by the

Respondent Nos.13 to 15 herein is in consonance with Rule 20 of the

Rules. Therefore, there is no change in the nature of the Election Petition

by allowing the amendment application. In view of the same, the

contention of the Petitioner that the Court below has erred in allowing the

amendment application which changes the nature of the main Election

Petition, is not sustainable.

27. As discussed supra, this Court is of the view that there is no

error much less patent error committed by the Election Tribunal while

allowing the application filed by the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 herein since

exercise of power under the CPC, is not in conflict with the Rules and in

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

fact, the Court below has considered the Rule that it has to enquire into the

Election Petition 'as nearly as may be' in accordance with the CPC to the

trial of the suits.

28. It is relevant to note that the principle laid down by the Apex

Court in Kailash (supra) is not considered by the Division Bench in

Kummari Ramulu (supra). Therefore, I agree with this Court on the

principle laid down in Merugu Kousalya (supra). Therefore, the principle

laid down in Kummari Ramulu (supra) is not applicable in view of the

law laid down by the Apex Court in Kailash (supra).

29. The Apex Court in Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra), by

referring the principle laid down in Kailash (supra) and other judgments,

held that the applicability of the procedure prescribed in CPC is

circumscribed by two riders; firstly, the procedure prescribed in CPC is

applicable only 'as nearly as may be', and secondly, CPC would give way

to any provisions of the Act or any Rules made there under. Therefore, the

procedure prescribed in CPC applies to election trial with flexibility and

only as guidelines.

30. In Muniraju Gowda P.M. (supra), the three Judge Bench of

the Apex Court, while dealing with an Election Petition under the

Representation of the People Act and order passed by the High Court of

Karnataka allowing the petitions filed by the Petitioners i) striking out the

pleadings, ii) rejection of the Election Petition on the ground of lack of

substratum and iii) striking out prayer in the Election Petition and held

that the election Petitioner cannot be allowed to suddenly wake up to the

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

reality of lack of pleading of material fats, relating to his rights in terms of

Section 101 of the Act, after more than 18 months of the filing of the

Election Petition. The same is also barred by limitation. Whereas, in the

present case, the Election Petition was filed in time and the Respondent

Nos.13 to 15/Election Petitioners have filed the present petition vide

I.A.No.787 of 2021 seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the

CPC. Therefore, the said principle laid down by the Apex Court in the

said judgment is not applicable. Thus, the Petitioner herein cannot contend

that the present interlocutory application vide I.A.No.787 of 2021 filed by

Respondent Nos.13 to 15 seeking amendment is barred by limitation.

31. In K.D.Deshmukh (supra), while dealing with an amendment

application which was totally a new ground falling under Section

100(1)(d) of the Act, and held that the same is not permissible and it is

beyond limitation. Therefore, the facts therein are different to the facts of

the present case. Therefore, the said principle is also not applicable to the

facts of the present case.

32. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, the only aspect

which has to be considered by the Election Tribunal is that whether the

procedure laid down under the Rules is in conflict with the provisions of

the C.P.C. Rule 9 of the Rules specifically refers that every Election

Petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal 'as nearly as may

be' in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of the suits

under C.P.C. Therefore, according to this Court, the Court below has not

committed any error much less patent while allowing the amendment

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Court below has

considered all the aspects including the law laid down by the Apex Court,

this Court and also the procedure laid down under the Rules and allowed

the said application vide I.A.No.787 of 2021 filed by the Respondent

Nos.13 to 15. According to this Court, it is a reasoned and well founded

order.

33. As discussed supra, as per Rule 3 of the Rules, an Election

Petition shall be instituted within 30 days from the date of declaration of

result of the election. In the present case, the Respondent Nos.13 to 15

have filed the present Election Petition within 30 days from the date of

declaration of the result of the election. The Court below held that the said

limitation would only apply to filing of Election Petition and not to filing

of any other application including application under Order VI Rule 17 of

CPC.

34. As discussed supra, the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 have filed the

Election Petition to declare the election to the Chairperson of Thukkuguda

Municipal Council as illegal. The said relief is intact. There is no change

to the said relief by virtue of allowing the amendment application. By

virtue of amendment, the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 are seeking to declare

the candidate who secured the second highest votes as Chairperson of

Thukkuguda Municipal Council. Therefore, there is no change to the

nature of the very Election Petition itself.

KL,J W.P.No.22479 of 2021

35. Viewed from any angle, the Petitioner fails to establish any

ground to set aside the impugned order. Therefore, this Writ Petition is

liable to be dismissed.

CONCLUSION:

36. In the Result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There is no order as

to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

writ petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:18.10.2021 Vvr