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