Classic Engineering Industries ... vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 128 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                    WRIT PETITION No. 647 OF 2023

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

" to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in declaring the petitioners ineligible to participate in the election notification dated 19.12.2022 schedule to be held on 09.01.2023 is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and contrary to the guidelines prescribed in the election notification and consequently direct the respondents to declare the petitioners as eligible candidates to participate in the election notification dated 19.12.2022 scheduled to be held on 09.01.2023 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Today, this Writ Petition is moved by way of lunch

motion stating that nomination of the petitioners was rejected

on the ground that petitioners have failed to fill one column

which has nothing to do with any of the details as details are

already furnished in the top of the column.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners Smt. Jyothi Eswar

Gogineni submits that Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure

Corporation is formed for the purpose of welfare of industrial

estates. It is submitted that the petitioners are members of

Nacharam Notified Municipal Industrial Area Service Society.

The term of the previous committee expired in 2019 and due to

Covid, no election has been conducted. After repeated requests

made by the members of the Society, notification was issued on

19.12.2022 to conduct elections to the Managing Committee

and election schedule was also given. It is submitted that the

2nd petitioner representing the 1st petitioner filed his nomination

on 29.12.2022 for the post of Vice-Chairman and petitioners 4

and 6 also filed nomination representing petitioners 3 and 5 for

the post of Managing Committee Member on 29.12.2022. To the

surprise of the petitioners, on 04.01.2023, at late hours, eligible

candidates' list has been displayed in the notice board excluding

the petitioners' names. On 05.01.2023, when the petitioners

came to know about the same, they were informed that their

nomination forms have been left blank with one line.

Learned counsel drawing attention of this Court to

the said form submits that first column starts with 'Nomination

for the post of -Vice-chairman' and the bottom it reads as 'I

accept the nomination proposed for the post of' and beneath

there is a signature. According to the respondents, petitioners

have not mentioned the post as Vice-Chairman, whereas in the

top of it, it contained the said post as Vice-Chairman. According

to the learned counsel, it is irrelevant and on irrelevant

considerations, nomination has been rejected. As elections are

scheduled to be held on 09.01.2023, it made the petitioners to

rush this Court.

Learned counsel has also relied on the order passed

by the High Court of Bombay in Arun, S/o Laxman Rae Alne v.

Returning Officer / Sub Divisional Officer1 wherein the learned

Judge has observed that 'learned Adhoc District Judge

committed patent error while holding that the affidavit is

incomplete because one of the printed page of the format i.e.

Annexure-I was kept blank. It appears that the Annexure-I of

the form of affidavit was printed on the stamp paper and also

felt that it would have been only petition of the same

information which was already filled up in Annexure-I below the

stamp paper'. She also relied on the judgment passed by the

Patna High Court in Daya Nand Sahay v. Kapil Sibal2 and

submits that 'Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act,

1951 provides for scrutiny of nomination papers and rejection of

nomination paper on any of the following grounds:

(a) that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations the candidate either is not qualified or is qualified for being chosen to fill the seat under any of the following provisions that may be applicable, namely:- Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191.

Part II of this Act and Ss. 4 and 14 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, or

2010 Law Suit(Bom) 183

AIR 2000 PATNA 209

(b) that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of S.33 or S.34; or

(c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine.'

It is submitted that whereas, in this case, it is not

the case of the respondents that petitioners failed to comply

with any of these conditions and in such case, petitioners'

nomination should not have been rejected.

4. Smt. G.Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel representing

Sri L. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TSIIC

submits that all the judgments relied on by the petitioners arise

out of the orders passed by the Election Tribunal. Learned

counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Prathipati

Bhagyamma v. Election Officer, Muppalla Primary Agricultural

Co-operative Society, Guntur District3 and Poloji Veeraiah v.

Returning Officer, Khammam District4 and submits that once

election process is commenced by issuing election notification,

there is bar to entertain the Writ Petitions and any disputes

arising out of it have to be decided by the Election Tribunal as

per the jurisdiction conferred under Article 329(b). It is

submitted that whatever be the reason, in view of the law laid

down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court,

2005(6) ALD 850

2009(3) ALD 822 (DB)

petitioners cannot approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. The petitioners have raised several grounds before

this Court and also relied on the orders passed by various

Courts. All these orders are arising out of the orders passed by

the Election Tribunal. As rightly pointed out by the learned

Standing Counsel, in view of the bar under Article 329(b) of the

Constitution, any disputes arising out of the same shall be tried

by the Election Tribunal and this Court cannot entertain the

Writ Petition.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving

liberty to the petitioners to raise all the issues before the

appropriate Election Tribunal. The observations that are made

by this Court are only for the purpose of deciding the issue with

regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition and it will not

come in the way of the petitioners in the Election Petition, if so

filed by the petitioners. No order as to costs.

7. The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand

automatically closed.

-----------------------------------

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 06th January 2023

ksld