Telangana High Court
Pathireddy Rajeshwar Reddy vs Vittal Dande on 3 May, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
ELECTION PETITION No.1 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned counsel representing
Mr. Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for Election Petitioner, Mr. B.
Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Pratusha
Boppanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - Returned
Candidate, Mr. Avinash Desai, learned senior counsel representing Mr.
Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr.
K.S. Rahul, learned counsel representing Ms. Padma Sharanappal,
learned counsel for respondent No.6.
2. This Election Petition is filed by the Election Petitioner under
Sections - 37, 80, 80A, 81, 83, 84, 99, 98, 100 (1) (c), 100 (1) (d) (iv),
101 and 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter
referred to as 'Act, 1951', to declare the election of respondent No.1 as
Returned Candidate of Telangana Legislative Council from 01-Adilabad
Local Authorities' Constituency, dated 14.12.2021, published in
Telangana Gazette 65, dated 15.12.2021 as void.
KL,J
FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. Pursuant to the press note dated 09.11.2021, the Election
Commission of India, vide Memo No.3133/Elecs.D/A2/2021-6, dated
09.11.2021, communicated the schedule of election with regard to
Biennial Election to the Telangana Legislative Council from 09-Local
Authorities Constituencies for 12 seats due to retirement of sitting
members on 04.01.2022.
i) As per the said Memo, the schedule of the subject election is as
follows:
S.No. Events Dates
01. Issue of Notification 16.11.2021 (Tuesday)
02. Last date of making nominations 23.11.2021 (Tuesday)
03. Scrutiny of Nominations 24.11.2021 (Wednesday)
04. Last date for Withdrawal 26.11.2021 (Friday)
05. Date of Poll 10.12.2021 (Friday)
06. Hours of Poll 08:00 am to 04.00 pm
07. Counting of Votes 14.12.2021 (Tuesday)
08. Date before which elections shall be completed 16.12.2021 (Thursday)
ii) The election petitioner filed his nomination for the subject
constituency on 23.11.2021 before respondent No.5. The nomination
papers were scrutinized as per the aforesaid election programme in the
presence of the election petitioner, and after verification the same was
accepted as valid by respondent No.5.
KL,J
iii) The name of the election petitioner was included in the list of
valid nominated candidates and the same was published and affixed on
the Notice Board on 23.11.2021.
iv) Thereafter, the election petitioner went to Hyderabad on some
personal work in respect of the election. While so, to his utter shock and
surprise, he was informed by his son around 03.00 p.m. on 26.11.2021
that the final list of contesting candidates was published and the name of
the election petitioner was missing. On 19.01.2022, the list of
withdrawal and rejection was uploaded on the official website of
respondent No.4.
v) Upon enquiry, the election petitioner learnt that one Mr.
Kishan Singari, MPP Dasturabad (respondent No.6) herein, who was one
of the proposers of the election petitioner for nomination, had submitted
withdrawal form by forging the election petitioner's signature and by
falsely claiming that the election petitioner has authorized him to submit
withdrawal form. In fact, he neither signed on withdrawal form, nor
authorized Mr.Kishan Singari to submit such withdrawal form on his
behalf.
KL,J
vi) The election petitioner came to know that such withdrawal
form was forged by Mr. Kishan Singari and was filed before respondent
No.5 at the instance of Telangana Rashtra Samiti Leaders, he gave a
complaint to respondent No.5 narrating the same. He also gave a
complaint through his AIRTEL Mobile No.9849421245 by way of
WhatsApp to the mobile No.9491053696 of respondent No.5.
vii) Since the election petitioner could not contact respondent
No.5, he also gave representation/complaint dated 26.11.2021 to
respondent No.4. The election petitioner also made an application dated
27.11.2021 to respondent No.5 to furnish certified copies of his
nomination form as well as forged form of withdrawal of nomination
along with alleged authorization form, but the same were not furnished
to him.
viii) The election was conducted as per the schedule mentioned
above and respondent No.1 herein was declared as Returned Candidate.
A Gazette Notification No.65 was also published on 15.12.2021 in
Telangana Gazette declaring respondent No.1 as elected candidate of the
subject constituency. Thus, the consequential action of respondent No.5
resulted in deprivation of the election petitioner from contesting free and
KL,J
fair election. Therefore, the said action clearly falls within the mischief
of Sections - 100 (1) (c) and 100 (1) (d) (iv) read with Sections - 37 of
the Act, 1951.
ix) Respondent No.5 did not follow the statutory obligation under
Section - 37 of the Act, 1951. Therefore, the result of entire election of
subject constituency is materially affected due to illegal acceptance of
forged withdrawal form by respondent No.5 without proper satisfaction
of genuineness or otherwise of alleged withdrawal form filed before him.
The conduct of respondent No.5 in not uploading all the relevant
documents in the official website shows his oblique motive.
x) The election petitioner lodged complaint with II-Town Police
Station, Adilabad on 27.11.2021 against the said Mr. Kishan Singari,
MPP Dasturabad for forgery and another complaint against respondent
No.6 with Dasturabad Police Station.
xi) To withdraw the said complaints and to restrain the election
petitioner from approaching this Court to challenge the subject election,
respondent No.1 got foisted a complaint on 28.11.2021 through one Mrs.
Shanta Puri Sharada, ZPTC Dasturabad against the election petitioner
and the same was registered as Crime No.63 of 2021 for the offences
KL,J
punishable under Sections - 323, 506 of IPC and Section - 3 (1) (r) (s) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. Therefore, the present election petition is filed by the
election petitioner seeking the aforesaid relief.
CASE OF RESPONDENT No.1:
4. Respondent No.1 filed his written statement denying the
allegations made by the election petitioner. He further contended as
follows:
i) The election petition filed by the election petitioner is not
maintainable since he has filed the said election petition contending that
respondent No.6, the proposer of the election petitioner, has fraudulently
withdrawn his nomination. The said ground is not enumerated in the
Act, 1951. The election petition filed by the election petitioner is
misconceived and is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act,
1951.
ii) The election petitioner having withdrawn his nomination
through respondent No.6 has come up with a false story only with the
sole object of filing the present election petition by misusing the process
of Court and to extract money from this respondent. The election
KL,J
petitioner himself withdrew the nomination and accordingly his name
did not figure in the final list of contesting candidates.
iii) The so-called Whatsapp complaint and also written
representation/complaint are created by the petitioner for the purpose of
filing the present election petition.
With the aforesaid submissions, respondent No.1 sought to dismiss the
present election petition.
CASE OF RESPONDENT No.5:
5. Respondent No.5 filed written statement denying the
allegations made by the election petitioner and further contended as
follows:
i) The election petitioner submitted his nomination papers on
23.11.2021 at 2.50 p.m. As per the guidelines prescribed in chapter VI
of the Returning Officer Hand Book, the scrutiny of the nomination
papers submitted by the election petitioner was taken up on 24.11.2021
at 11.00 A.M. and his nomination was accepted and his name was also
included in the list of contesting candidate and the same was published
in Form-4 vide letter dated 24.11.2021.
KL,J
ii) On 26.11.2021, respondent No.6 filed withdrawal notice from
the said election in Form-5 before respondent No.5. After verification of
signatures of the election petitioner and his proposer - respondent No.6
with reference to nomination paper found that the signatures tallied and
found to be correct. Therefore, withdrawal of election petitioner as a
candidate was accepted as per Clause - 1.1 of Chapter VII of the
guidelines.
iii) The Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana had forwarded the
application of the election petitioner to this respondent, who submitted a
detailed report vide letter dated 26.11.2021 stating that the election
petitioner was one of the contesting candidates for the subject
constituency and his nomination was withdrawn pursuant to the
presentation of notice of withdrawal by respondent No.6 and after due
verification of the signatures of election petitioner and respondent No.6
on the withdrawal form and the nomination paper. Thus, the contention
of election petitioner that the withdrawal form submitted by the election
petitioner was forged is misconceived.
With the aforesaid contentions, respondent No.5 sought to dismiss the
election petition.
KL,J
CASE OF RESPONDENT No.6:
6. Respondent No.6 filed his written statement denying the
contention of the election petitioner by contending as follows:
i) The election petitioner himself signed and handed over the
withdrawal form to him to be submitted to respondent No.5 - Returning
Officer. Accordingly, this respondent duly handed over the said
withdrawal papers to respondent No.5 as directed by the election
petitioner. Consequently, respondent No.5 duly accepted the withdrawal
of the election petitioner from the election and removed his name from
the final list of contesting candidates.
ii) The election petitioner is making false allegations deliberately
knowing the same to be false for the purpose of filing the present
election petition.
With the aforesaid contentions, respondent No.6 sought to dismiss the
election petition.
SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES:
7. 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, 5 and 6, this Court has framed the following
KL,J
thirteen (13) issues on 10.04.2023, however issue No.3 was re-settled
vide order dated 12.04.2023.
i. Whether respondent No.5 verified the signatures of Election
Petitioner on alleged notice of withdrawal authorization
(Form No.5) and satisfied itself as to genuineness of the
same as contended in the written statement of respondent
No.5, if not, to what relief?
ii. Whether respondent No.5 colluded with respondent Nos.1
and 6 as contended by the Election Petitioner and accepted
forged and fabricated withdrawal forms?
iii. Whether respondent Nos.2 to 5 abdicated their
responsibilities and duties as envisaged under the
Representation of People Act,1951 and the Rules and the
Guidelines framed thereunder, more particularly, while
accepting the alleged withdrawal of nomination of Election
Petitioner, if so, to what effect?
iv. Whether respondent No.5 abdicated their responsibilities
and duties as envisaged under the Representation of People
Act, 1951 and the Rules and the Guidelines framed
thereunder, more particularly, while accepting the alleged
withdrawal of nomination of Election Petitioner, if so, to
what effect?
KL,J
v. Whether the notice of withdrawal of nomination of the
petitioner submitted by respondent No.6 to respondent No.5
is forged?
vi. Whether the submission of an alleged forged notice of
withdrawal of nomination of petitioner submitted by
respondent No.6, a proposer of the petitioner, constitutes a
ground for setting aside the Election of respondent No.1?
vii. Whether respondent No.5 acted contrary to the provisions of
Representation of People Act, 1951 in accepting the notice
of withdrawal of nomination of petitioner submitted by
respondent No.6?
viii. Whether the acceptance of the notice of withdrawal of
nomination of petitioner submitted by respondent No.6
constitutes the ground of improper rejection of the
nomination of the petitioner under Section - 100 (1) (c) of
the Representation of People Act, 1951?
ix. Whether respondent No.5 has not complied with any
particular provisions of the Constitution of India or the
Representation of People Act, 1951 or Rules or Orders made
under the said Act, in accepting the notice of withdrawal of
nomination of petitioner submitted by respondent No.6? If
yes, what are the provisions that were not complied with?
x. What is the effect of respondent No.5 in accepting the notice
of withdrawal of nomination of petitioner submitted by
respondent No.6 on the Election of respondent No.1?
KL,J
xi. Whether the election of respondent No.1 is liable to be set
aside?
xii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for costs?
xiii. To What relief?
8. Vide order dated 17.04.2023, this Court appointed Mr. T.
Muralidhar, 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 A20 documents. RW.1 was examined on behalf of respondent
No.5 and RW.2 was examined on behalf of respondent No.1 and RW.3
was examined on behalf of respondent No.6 and Exs.R1 to R4 were
marked.
CONTENTIONS OF ELECTION PETITIONER:
9. It is contended by Mr. Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned
counsel for the Election Petitioner that the election petitioner has
submitted his nomination, the same was accepted and his name was also
included in the list of validly nominated candidates. Thereafter, through
forged withdrawal form by respondent No.6 in collusion with TRS
leaders and respondent No.1 submitted to respondent No.5. Without
verifying the same, respondent No.5 accepted the same. He has lodged
KL,J
a complaint with respondent No.5 by sending the same through
WhatsApp from his mobile No.9849421245 to respondent No.5's mobile
No.9491053696. Since he was in Hyderabad, he could not contact
respondent No.5 immediately, however, he gave a complaint on
26.11.2021 to respondent No.4. Thus, respondent No.5 did not follow
statutory obligation under Section - 37 of the Act, 1951. Respondent
No.5 has not considered the complaint including the complaint sent
through WhatsApp by the election petitioner.
i) Respondent No.5 without proper satisfaction of genuineness or
otherwise of alleged withdrawal letter filed by respondent No.6 accepted
the same. Respondent No.5 did not upload all the requisite documents
on the official website which shows her oblique motive to support
respondent No.1.
ii) The election petitioner lodged a complaint on 27.11.2021 with
II Town Police Station, Adilabad, against respondent No.6 for forging
his signature on the withdrawal form as well as authorization letter and
submitting the same with respondent No.5.
iii) The election petitioner has lodged another complaint against
respondent No.6 with Dasturbad Police Station. Thus, the result of the
KL,J
entire election of subject constituency has materially affected due to
illegal acceptance of forged withdrawal form by respondent No.5
without proper satisfaction of genuineness or otherwise of the alleged
withdrawal form along with authorization letter submitted by respondent
No.6. There is no response from respondent No.5 on Ex.A10 -
complaint.
iv) Though respondent No.5 has received Ex.A9 - complaint sent
by the election petitioner through WhatsApp on her official number, she
had not pursued the said complaint. No action was taken on Ex.A14 -
complaint. Therefore, the election petitioner has filed a writ petition
vide W.P. No.32201 of 2021 to declare the action of respondent Nos.4
and 5 herein in accepting forged withdrawal of nomination form
allegedly submitted on behalf of the election petitioner and subsequently
refusing to disregard/reject the said forged withdrawal of nomination
form as illegal. Vide order dated 06.12.2021, the said writ petition was
dismissed on the ground that once the process of election has
commenced, the question of staying the election process or the question
of permitting the election petitioner to participate in the process of
election does not arise. If the election petitioner is aggrieved by the
KL,J
alleged illegal acceptance of his withdrawal in respect of the nomination,
he has to file an election petition.
v) Regarding forgery of Exs.R1 and 2, it is evident from the
evidence of PW.2 - expert and his report vide Ex.X1.
vi) Section - 37 (3) of the Act, 1951 says that the Returning
Officer shall, on being satisfied as to the genuineness of a notice or
withdrawal and the identity of the person delivering it under sub-section
(1), cause the notice to be affixed in some conspicuous place in his
office. In the present case, respondent No.5 failed to verify the
genuineness of the signature and submission of withdrawal form along
with authorization said to have given by the election petitioner by
respondent No.6. Thus, there is violation of Section - 37 (3) of the Act,
1951.
vii) Respondent No.5 did not follow the procedure laid down
under Section 38 (1) of the Act, 1951, and there is violation of the said
procedure. However, there is no time frame fixed under Section - 38 (1)
of the Act, 1951 except the word 'immediately'. There is violation of
Rule - 9 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Rules, 1961') by respondent No.5. Even with regard to the
KL,J
withdrawal, procedure is prescribed under Ex.R6 - Election Hand Book,
more particularly, clause - (4). Respondent No.5 did not follow the said
procedure. There was no suggestion to the election petitioner (PW.1)
and also respondent No.6 (RW.3) with regard to Exs.R1 and R2 which
would reveal that respondent No.6 has submitted Exs.R1 and R2 to
respondent No.5 colluding with respondent No.1 and his party leaders.
viii) Section - 100 of the Act, 1951 deals with 'grounds for
declaring election to be void'. Non-compliance with the provisions of
the Constitution or of the Act or of any Rules or orders made under the
Act, 1951, is a ground to declare the election as void. Therefore, there is
no need of pleading and proving the same.
ix) It is the specific contention of the election petitioner that
respondent No.1 in collusion with respondent No.6 and their party
leaders forged his signature on Exs.R1 and R2, prepared Ex.R1
authorization form and submitted it to respondent No.5 and the same is
apparent from the evidence of PW.2 and Ex.X1 - expert's report.
Respondent No.5 without verifying the same and without satisfying the
rules/guidelines accepted the said nomination form illegally. Colluding
with each other, respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6 deprived the election
KL,J
petitioner the opportunity of contesting in the subject election.
Therefore, the subject election of respondent No.1 - returned candidate
of the Telangana Legislative Council from 01-Adilabad Local
Authorities' Constituency, dated 14.12.2021, published in Telangana
Gazette 65, dated 15.12.2021 is liable to be declared as void.
x) Learned counsel for the election petitioner has placed reliance
on the decisions in Rattan Anmol Singh v. Ch. Atma Ram 1; Mrs.
Murial Hyden v. Mrs. Dulcie M. Robb 2; P. ORR and Sons (P) Ltd.,
v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited 3; and Muddasani
Venkata Narsaiah (dead) through Legal Representatives v.
Muddasani Sarojana 4.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.5:
10. Whereas, Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel for
respondent No.5, contended that there is no violation of the procedure
laid down under the Act, 1951 including Sections - 36, 37 and 38 and
Rule - 9 of the Rules, 1961 by respondent No.5. The Returning Officer
. AIR 1954 SC 510
. 1991 (1) ALT 5
. (1991) 1 SCC 301
. (2016) 12 SCC 288
KL,J
cannot conduct roving enquiry and cannot verify the signatures. The
Returning Officer cannot come to a conclusion that the signature of the
election petitioner was forged by going through the signature of the
election petitioner on Exs.R1 and R2 with naked eye. Enquiry
contemplated under Section - 36 of the Act, 1951 is only summary in
nature. Respondent No.6 is one of the proposers of the election
petitioner in the nomination form and, therefore, respondent No.5
believed him and accepted the withdrawal form (Ex.R2) submitted by
him along with authorization letter (Ex.R1) issued by the election
petitioner. There is no error on the part of respondent No.5.
i) In all, 23 nominations were filed for the subject constituency
out of which, 21 candidates have submitted their withdrawal forms
including the petitioner herein. Respondent No.5 cannot verify each and
every withdrawal form and cannot conduct a roving enquiry, more
particularly, with regard to the genuineness of the signature. There is no
dereliction of duty on the part of respondent No.5. She has verified the
signatures of the election petitioner on Exs.R1 and R2 with naked eye
and since it appears similar, she accepted the same. There is no need to
enquire as to why candidate himself was not present and why he has not
KL,J
submitted withdrawal form in person. It is not the duty of the Returning
Officer and she cannot consider the complaint sent by the election
petitioner after 3.00 p.m. and she has received the said complaint at 3.39
p.m. She has displayed the list of validly nominated candidates in terms
of Section - 38 of the Act, 1951. Returning Officer has no review power
under Section - 37 (2) of the Act, 1951. There is no deliberate hiding of
any fact. Even the Returning Officer and this Court cannot come to a
conclusion with regard to the forgery signature of the election petitioner.
His remedies are elsewhere.
ii) He has placed reliance on the decisions in Uttamrao Shivdas
Jankar v. Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite Patil 5; Kameng Dolo v. Atum
Welly 6; Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant 7;
Bhogendra Jha v. Manoj Kumar Jha 8; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand
Purohit 9; Banala Krishna Murthy v. N. Gopal Reddy 10 and
Anakapalli Appalaraju v. Pentakata Siva Kondarao 11.
. (2009) 13 SCC 131
. (2017) 7 SCC 512
. (2014) 14 SCC 162
. (1997) 2 SCC 236
. 1988 (Supp) SCC 604
. 83 ELR 193
. AIR 1982 AP 208
KL,J
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.1:
11. Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing
Ms. Pratusha Bopanna, learned counsel for respondent No.1, would
contend that the present election petition filed by the election petitioner
is not maintainable. The contention of the election petitioner that his
signature was forged on Exs.R1 and R2 by respondent No.6 and
submitted the same to respondent No.5, who has accepted the same
without following procedure laid down under the Act, 1951 and the
Rules, 1961 is not a ground to file the present election petition to declare
the election and the returned candidate of the subject constituency as
void. The election petitioner failed to plead by placing any cogent
evidence to prove the subject election is materially affected. Respondent
No.1 cannot be penalized for the mistake, if any, committed by
respondent No.5 - Returning Officer or by respondent No.6 - proposer of
election petitioner. It is not a ground to declare the election of
respondent No.1 as void.
i) He has placed reliance on Section - 27 of the Act, 1950 and it
deals with 'preparation of electoral rolls for Council Constituencies', but
the election petitioner did not examine any voter of the said
KL,J
constituency. Two candidates were in contest of the subject election i.e.,
respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. By virtue of the acceptance of
Ex.R2 withdrawal form, respondent No.1 did not get any benefit.
Respondent No.1 ultimately faced election and stood as returned
candidate after election. He was not declared as returned candidate
unanimously. This Court cannot rely on the deposition of PW.2 - expert
and his opinion - Ex.X1, to come to a conclusion that the signature of the
election petitioner is forged on Exs.R1 and R2. Expert opinion is a weak
piece of evidence and it should be supported by other corroborative
evidence. In the present case, there is no other cogent evidence to
support the case of PW.2 and Ex.X1. With the said submissions, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 sought to dismiss
the present election petition.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.6:
12. Mr. K.S. Rahul, learned counsel representing Ms. Padma
Sharanappa, learned counsel for respondent No.6, adopted the
submissions made by Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. He would further submit that
there is no need to mention the date, time and place on Exs.R1 and R2 at
the signature of election petitioner. Respondent No.5 has complied with
KL,J
statutory obligation in terms of Section - 37 of the Act, 1951. There is
no error in it. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the
present election petition.
ANALYSIS AND FINDING ON_ISSUE Nos.(i), (iii), (iv) & (v):
13. The aforesaid stated facts would reveal that, according to the
election petitioner, his signature was forged on Ex.R2 - withdrawal form
and also Ex.R1 - authorization letter by respondent No.6 and submitted
them to respondent No.5 in collusion with respondent No.1 and his party
leaders. In support of the same, he relied on the deposition of PW.2 and
Ex.X1 - expert's report. On receipt of Ex.R2 - withdrawal form along
with authorization letter (Ex.R21) from respondent No.6 on behalf of the
election petitioner, respondent No.5 being Returning Officer has to
ascertain the genuineness of the withdrawal form and identity of the
person delivering it, with regard to particulars of the same in terms of
Section - 37 (1) of the Act, 1951. The Returning Officer shall note
thereon the date and time at which it was delivered. According to the
election petitioner, respondent No.5 did not follow the said procedure.
KL,J
i) In the light of the above, Sections - 36 (2) (c), 37, 38 and 100
(1) (c) and 1(d) (iv) of the Act, 1951 and Rules - 9 and 10 of the Rules,
1961 are relevant and the same are extracted hereunder:
"36. Scrutiny of nominations.--
(1) xxxxx
(2) The returning officer shall then examine the
nomination papers and shall decide all objections
which may be made to any nomination and may,
either on such objection or on his own motion, after
such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary,
reject any nomination on any of the following
grounds:--
(a) xxxxx
(b) xxxxx; or
(c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer
on the nomination paper is not genuine."
"37. Withdrawal of candidature.--(1) Any
candidate may withdraw his candidature by a notice
in writing which shall contain such particulars as may
be prescribed and shall be subscribed by him and
delivered before three O'clock in the afternoon on the
day fixed under clause (c) of section 30 to the
returning officer either by such candidate in person or
by his proposer, or election agent who has been
authorised in this behalf in writing by such candidate.
KL,J
(2) No person who has given a notice or withdrawal
of his candidature under sub-section (1) shall be
allowed to cancel the notice.
(3) The returning officer shall, on being satisfied as to
the genuineness of a notice or withdrawal and the
identity of the person delivering it under sub-section
(1), cause the notice to be affixed in some
conspicuous place in his office."
"38. Publication of list of contesting candidates.--
(1) Immediately after the expiry of the period within
which candidatures may be withdrawn under sub-
section (1) of section 37, the returning officer shall
prepare and publish in such form and manner as may
be prescribed a list of contesting candidates, that is to
say, candidates who were included in the list of
validly nominated candidates and who have not
withdrawn their candidature within the said period.
(2) For the purpose of listing the names under sub-
section (1), the candidates shall be classified as
follows, namely:--
(i) candidates of recognised political parties;
(ii) candidates of registered political parties other
than those mentioned in clause (i);
(iii) other candidates.
(3) The categories mentioned in sub-section (2) shall
be arranged in the order specified therein and the
names of candidates in each category shall be
KL,J
arranged in alphabetical order and the addresses of
the contesting candidates as given in the nomination
papers together with such other particulars as may be
prescribed."
"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) xxxxx; or
(b) xxxxx; 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) xxxxx, or
(ii) xxxxx, or
(iii) xxxxx, or
(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.
2. xxxxx"
"Rule - 2. Interpretation.--
(1) xxxxx
(2) For the purposes of the Act or these rules, a
person who is unable to write his name shall, unless
otherwise expressly provided in these rules, be
KL,J
deemed to have signed an instrument or other paper
if--
(a) he has placed a mark on such instrument or
other paper in the presence of the returning officer
or the presiding officer or such other officer as
may be specified in this behalf by the Election
Commission, and
(b) such officer on being satisfied as to his identity
has attested the mark as being the mark of that
person."
"Rule - 9. Notice of withdrawal of
candidature.--(1) A notice of withdrawal of
candidature under sub-section (1) of section 37 shall
be in Form 5 and shall contain the particulars set out
therein; and on receipt of such notice, the returning
officer shall note thereon the date and time at which it
was delivered.
(2) The notice under sub-section (3) of section 37
shall be in Form 6."
"Rule - 10. Preparation of list of contesting
candidates.--(1) The list of contesting candidates
referred to in subsection (1) of section 38 shall be in
Form 7A or Form 7B as may be appropriate and shall
contain the particulars set out therein and shall be
prepared in such language or languages as the
Election Commission may direct.
(2) Omitted
KL,J
(3) If the list is prepared in more languages than one,
the names of candidates therein shall be arranged
alphabetically according to the script of such one of
those languages as the Election Commission may
direct.
(4) At an election in a parliamentary or assembly
constituency, where a poll becomes necessary, the
returning officer shall consider the choice of symbols
expressed by the contesting candidates in their
nomination papers and shall, subject to any general or
special direction issued in this behalf by the Election
Commission,--
(a) allot a different symbol to each contesting
candidate in conformity, as far as practicable,
with his choice; and
(b) if more contesting candidates than one have
indicated their preference for the same symbol
decide by lot to which of such candidates the
symbol will be allotted.
(5) The allotment by the returning officer of any
symbol to a candidate shall be final except where it is
inconsistent with any directions issued by the Election
Commission in this behalf in which case the Election
Commission may revise the allotment in such manner
as it thinks fit.
(6) Every candidate or his election agent shall
forthwith be informed of the symbol allotted to the
KL,J
candidate and be supplied with a specimen thereof by
the returning officer."
ii) To substantiate the said contentions, the election petitioner
examined himself as PW.1 and examined the expert as PW.2 and Exs.A6
to A12, A14, A15 and A19 and also relied on Ex.X1 - expert opinion,
Ex.R4 - CCTV footage, Ex.R5 - report of respondent No.5 submitted to
the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana, Ex.R6 - Hand Book of the
Elections and Ex.R7 - response to the application submitted by the
election petitioner under RTI Act.
iii) There is no dispute that the election petitioner herein has
submitted nomination for the election of subject constituency on
23.11.2021 pursuant to Ex.A1 - schedule of elections. Respondent No.6
is one of the proposers to the said nomination. Respondent No.6 is a
personal friend of the election petitioner. The said fact was also
admitted by him during cross-examination. It is also not in dispute that
respondent No.6 herein was the Mandal Praja Parishad (MPP) from TRS
Party of Dasturabad, while the election petitioner was the ZPTC from
Sarangapur Mandal. It is also not in dispute that the election petitioner,
respondent No.1 and respondent No.6 belong to the very same political
party i.e., TRS Party (now BRS).
KL,J
iv) It is the specific contention of the election petitioner that he
never gave authorization to respondent No.6 to submit withdrawal form
with respondent No.5. He has not signed on Ex.R2 - withdrawal form.
Even then, respondent No.5 accepted Ex.R2 without following due
procedure laid down under law and deprived the election petitioner from
contesting in the subject constituency.
v) In the light of the same, it is relevant to note that Section - 37
of the Act, 1951 deals with 'withdrawal of candidature'. It says any
candidate may withdraw his candidature by a notice in writing which
shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be
subscribed by him and delivered before three O'clock in the afternoon on
the day fixed under clause (c) of section 30 to the returning officer either
by such candidate in person or by his proposer, or election agent who has
been authorised in this behalf in writing by such candidate.
vi) As discussed above, respondent No.6 is proposer to the
nomination filed by the election petitioner vide Ex.R3. Therefore,
respondent No.6 being the proposer can submit notice of withdrawal to
respondent No.5.
KL,J
vii) Section - 37 (3) of the Act, 1951 says that the Returning
Officer shall, on being satisfied as to the genuineness of a notice or
withdrawal and the identity of the person delivering it under sub-section
(1), cause the notice to be affixed in some conspicuous place in the
office. Rule - 9 of the Rules, 1961, deals with notice of withdrawal of
candidature, and it says that a notice of withdrawal of candidature under
sub-section (1) of section 37 shall be in Form 5 and it shall contain the
particulars set out therein, and on receipt of such notice, the returning
officer shall note thereon the date and time at which it was delivered.
Rule - 9 (2) says that the notice under sub-section (3) of Section - 37
shall be in Form 6.
viii) Perusal of Ex.R2 - notice of withdrawal of candidature
would reveal that it is in form No.5, and all the columns were filled in
with hand-writing. It was received at 2.42 P.M. on 26.11.2021 submitted
by respondent No.6 proposer. It contains the signature of respondent
No.5 - Returning Officer.
ix) Ex.R1 is the withdrawal authorization form which was filled
in and appears to have signed by the election petitioner. It also contains
KL,J
the signature of respondent No.6 and his mobile phone Nos.9494578944
and 9398805561.
x) Respondent No.6 deposed as RW.3 in the present election
petition. According to him, the election petitioner has handed over the
duly filled and signed withdrawal papers to him to be submitted to
respondent No.5. As directed by the election petitioner, he has
submitted the same to respondent No.5, who in turn accepted the same.
The allegation made by the election petitioner is that he has forged the
signatures of election petitioner on Exs.R1 and R2 is false.
a) During cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not
mention in his chief affidavit, the date, time and place at which the
withdrawal form was handed over to him by the election petitioner.
However, he denied the suggestion that he has prepared the same by
forging the signatures of the election petitioner. Therefore, he has not
mentioned the date, time and place intentionally.
xi) It is relevant to note that the election petitioner herein has filed
an interlocutory application vide I.A. No.4 of 2023 in E.P. No.1 of 2022
to send Exs.R1 and R2 to an expert for comparison for his opinion to
ascertain whether the signature appearing thereon is of the election
KL,J
petitioner by comparing it with the admitted signatures in Ex.R3 -
nomination form, to any recognized Central Government Forensic
Institution. Vide order dated 13.10.2023, the said I.A. was allowed and
Exs.R1 and R2 were sent along with Vakalat, affidavit in lieu of chief-
examination of the election petitioner to the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, for opinion of a handwriting
expert so as to ascertain whether the signature appearing thereon is that
of the election petitioner by comparing with the admitted signatures
available on Ex.R3 - nomination form, Vakalat etc.
a) PW.2 is the Assistant Director and Scientist - C, Central
Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. He has compared the
signatures on Exs.R1 and R2 and also Ex.R3 and gave his opinion under
Ex.X1. He deposed that he has examined all the documents forwarded to
their laboratory carefully and thoroughly using various scientific
instruments, such as angle poise lamp, hand lenses of various
magnifications, stereo microscope and video spectral comparator and
expressed his opinion, which is as follows:
"The person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures
stamped and marked A1 to A80 did not write the red
KL,J
enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked as
Q1 and Q2."
Nothing contra was elicited from him during cross-examination.
xii) A question put by learned counsel for respondent No.1 to the
election petitioner during cross-examination and answer given by him
are relevant and the same are extracted below:
"Q: I put it to you that his signatures on nomination papers
and withdrawal form and authorization letter are mine?
A: Yes. (again says) the signatures on nomination forms are
mine and the other signatures are not mine."
a) Referring to the same, learned counsel for respondent No.5
would contend that the election petitioner has signed on Exs.R1 and R2
and gave it to respondent No.6 with a request to submit the same to
respondent No.5. And, now filed the present election petition with a
mala fide intention to extract money.
b) During cross-examination by learned counsel for respondent
No.1, PW.1 - election petitioner admitted that in para No.1 of Ex.A16
that "somebody has submitted an application for withdrawal". Referring
to the same, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would
contend that the election petitioner herein failed to allege that respondent
KL,J
No.6 forged his signatures on Exs.R1 and R2 in the writ affidavit filed in
support of W.P. No.32201 of 2021.
c) There is specific assertion by the election petitioner that
somebody has submitted an application for withdrawal of his nomination
and the same has been accepted by the Returning Officer. The said order
is dated 06.12.2021. However, in Ex.A9 - complaint sent by the election
petitioner to respondent No.5 and Ex.A10 - copy of complaint submitted
by the election petitioner to respondent No.4 and Ex.A11 - copy of
complaint submitted by the election petitioner to respondent No.4 that
his proposer for nomination has submitted withdrawal form before
respondent No.5 by forging his signatures at the instance of TRS leaders.
d) Thus, there is specific allegation made by the election
petitioner against respondent No.6 that he has forged his signature on
Exs.R1 and R2 and submitted Ex.R2 - notice of withdrawal to
respondent No.5.
xiii) As rightly contended by Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that the expert opinion is a weak
piece of evidence. Relying on expert's opinion alone, this Court cannot
come to a conclusion that the signature of the election petitioner is
KL,J
forged on Exs.R1 and R2 and submitted the same to respondent No.5. It
should be supported by other cogent evidence.
a) As discussed above, right from the beginning, the election
petitioner is contending that his signature was forged on Exs.R1 and R2
by respondent No.6 in collusion with respondent No.1 and TRS leaders
and submitted the same to respondent No.5. The same is also evident
from Exs.A9 to A11 and A16. He has also lodged Ex.A14 - complaint
with II-Town Police Station, Adilabad, alleging forgery of his signature
on Exs.R1 and R2 by respondent No.6 in collusion with respondent No.1
and his party leaders. The police did not act upon the same. However,
the election petitioner did not take any steps including lodging of a
complaint with Higher Officials or filing of a complaint under Section -
200 of the Cr.P.C. But, non-initiation of such steps by the election
petitioner is not fatal to the present election petition.
b) It is apt to note that, as stated above, the election petitioner has
filed I.A. No.4 of 2023 to send his signatures on Exs.R1 and R2 for
expert's opinion to compare with Ex.R3, and the said IA was allowed.
The said signatures were sent to expert's opinion i.e., Central Forensic
Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. PW.2 on examination of documents
KL,J
gave Ex.X1 - opinion. As per deposition of PW.2 - expert and Ex.X1 -
opinion of expert, the signature of the election petitioner was forged on
Exs.R1 and R2. Thus, the deposition of PW.2 and Ex.X1 - opinion is
supported by Exs.A9, 10 and 11 - complaints lodged by the election
petitioner with respondent Nos.5 and 4 respectively; Ex.A14 - complaint
lodged by him with II-Town Police Station, Adilabad, Ex.A15 -
complaint along with FIR in Crime No.63 of 2021 of Dasturabad Police
Station; and certified copy of order in W.P No.32201 of 2021. The
depositions of PW.1 - election petitioner, PW.2 - expert and his opinion
under Ex.X1 and also Exs.A9 to A11 and 14 - complaints are
corroborative with each other. Nothing was elicited from PWs.1 and 2
during cross-examination to disprove Ex.X1 opinion. Thus, it can safely
be concluded that the signatures of the election petitioner on Exs.R1 and
R2 is forged. In the light of the same, there is no need to the election
petitioner to pursue other remedies with regard to non-registration of
crime against respondent No.6 basing on Ex.A14 - complaint as
contended by respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6.
xiv) It is relevant to note that the election petitioner has filed a
writ petition vide W.P. No.32201 of 2021 at the earliest point of time.
KL,J
However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2021 on the
ground that the election process was set on motion and, therefore, the
election petitioner has to file election petition, but he cannot seek to
interdict with the election process. In paragraph No.7 of the writ
affidavit, there is specific assertion that on further enquiry, the election
petitioner learnt that respondent No.6 had allegedly submitted
withdrawal forms by forging his signature and by falsely claiming that
the election petitioner had authorized him to submit the said forged
withdrawal forms. In fact, the election petitioner neither sent any
withdrawal form, nor authorized anyone including respondent No.6 to
submit the said withdrawal form on his behalf. His signature was
forged.
xv) As discussed above, respondent No.5 being Returning Officer
on receipt of Exs.R1 and R2 shall, on being satisfied as to the
genuineness of a notice or withdrawal and the identity of the person
delivering it under sub-section (1) of Section - 37 of the Act, 1951, cause
the notice to be affixed in some conspicuous place of the office. Rule - 9
of the Rules, 1961 says that on receipt of notice of withdrawal, the
Returning Officer shall note thereon the date and time at which it was
KL,J
delivered. As discussed above, on Ex.R2, respondent No.5 has
mentioned the date, time and receipt of the same.
xvi) The only aspect to be considered now is whether the
Returning Officer has come to the satisfaction with regard to receipt of
Exs.R1 and R2 - withdrawal authorization form and notice of withdrawal
and the signature of the election petitioner on the same. Respondent
No.5 - Returning Officer was examined as RW.1. In her chief-
examination, she herself deposed that, she accepted the withdrawal form
submitted by respondent No.6, who was the proposer of the election
petitioner after verifying the signatures of the election petitioner
(contesting candidate) in Withdrawal Form 5 and the signature of the
election petitioner and proposer in the withdrawal authorization form
with respect to the nomination paper submitted by the election petitioner
and a notice in Form 6 was published on the notice board in the
Collector's office regarding the candidates who have withdrawn their
candidature on 26.11.2021, after 3 P.M. and also published the list in
Form 7B of contesting candidates.
a) She further deposed that the election petitioner had submitted
a representation to the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana, with
KL,J
allegations that his proposer has submitted the withdrawal petition by
forging his signature and the Chief Electoral Officer called for a report
from her. She submitted a report on 26.11.2021 to the Chief Electoral
Officer, Telangana vide letter No.H4/959/2021 through e-mail. The CC
Footage of the Collectorate Office on 26.11.2021 at 11 AM to 5 PM
containing withdrawal process of MLC (Local Bodies), Adilabad was
furnished to the applicant on 17.05.2022 under RTI Act.
b) It is relevant to note that respondent Nos.1 and 6 did not cross-
examine RW.1 - Returning Officer.
c) During cross-examination by the election petitioner, RW.1
admitted that by Ex.A3 - letter dated 13.11.2021, her contact details have
been notified at serial No.1 of the enclosure along with her mobile
number i.e., 9491053696. She has submitted para-wise remarks to the
Advocate General in respect of Ex.A21 - writ affidavit vide letter
No.H4/959/2021, dated 03.12.2021 wherein she has not mentioned with
regard to the complaint given to her by the election petitioner through
WhatsApp on 26.11.2021 as asserted by the election petitioner in
paragraph No.9 of the writ affidavit. She did not make any endorsement,
nor recorded any remarks on Exs.R1 and R2. On receipt of Exs.R1 and
KL,J
R2, she did not contact the election petitioner either by giving notice or
over phone or message. She has gone through Ex.R4 pen drive, which is
played at the time of her cross-examination. She also saw the person
with mask submitting papers to her. She did not collect the identity
particulars of that person to verify his identity. However, she
volunteered that they have the entire photo electoral roll with all
particulars along with photographs of candidates and proposers and as
such there was no need to collect the identity particulars. She further
admitted that the electoral roll is not seen on her table at that particular
time, and they have the serial number and part number of all the electors
including the candidates and the proposers in ready reference. In the clip,
she can see that she has verified the signature of the candidate on the
withdrawal papers with the pre-submitted nomination form submitted by
the candidate, which is the procedure prescribed by the Election
Commission. She cannot see in the clip of Ex.R4 at 00151 verification
of electoral rolls by her as to the person who submitted the withdrawal
form.
d) She further admitted that she did not make any note in writing
in Exs.R1 to R3 about the requirements contemplated under Section - 37
KL,J
of the Act, 1951. She was satisfied with the requirements. She has not
asked the proposer why the candidate was not present in person for
handing over the withdrawal forms since it is not mandatory as per the
Rules. Enclosure to Ex.R1 contains the mobile number of election
petitioner below his name. Security deposit also contains his cell
number. She has not verified and signed the written statement filed on
her behalf in the present election petition. She has not filled the blanks
with her hand in Ex.R2, but she signed it. Ex.R2 was recorded in real
time i.e., 2.42 P.M. when the same was handed over to her by respondent
No.6. After 3.00 P.M., she published the list of withdrawn candidates.
She cannot say the exact time of its publication. Ex.R7 was issued and
CCTV footage of Collectorate office was delivered to the election
petitioner subsequent to the filing of the election petition. As per the
affidavit filed on her behalf in the present election petition, CCTV
footage i.e., Ex.R4, dated 26.11.2021 was filed before this Court.
e) A question put by the election petitioner to respondent No.5
during cross-examination and her answer is relevant and the same are
extracted hereunder:
KL,J
"Q:- Have you received the whatsapp complaint, marked as
Ex.A9, from the election petitioner on 26.11.2021 to your
official mobile phone, as it contains two double ticks?
A:- I am not aware of the exact message. However I have
submitted my report to the C.E.O. office immediately on
complaint filed by the same petitioner. "
f) She is not aware of any calls made by the election petitioner to
her mobile phone on 26.11.2021. Ex.R4 is the CCTV footage. She saw
the clippings of Ex.R4. She has enquired with the candidates/proposers
who were presenting withdrawal forms whether the signatures belong to
them. She saw the clipping at 00135 of Ex.R4, wherein she turned the
pages of the nomination papers and verified the signatures of the
candidate as well as the proposer. She verified the signatures of the
candidates and the proposers in all the cases.
xvii) The aforesaid facts would reveal that respondent No.6 has
forged the signature of the election petitioner on Exs.R1 and R2 and
submitted the same to respondent No.5. On receipt of the same,
respondent No.5, without verifying the same and without coming to
satisfaction and without following mandatory procedure as required
under Section - 37 of the Act, 1951, accepted the same and published the
list of validly nominated candidates i.e., Ex.A8.
KL,J
xviii) In Rattan Anmol Singh1, the Apex Court considered the
satisfaction in terms of Rule - 2 (2) of the Rules, 1961, and in paragraph
No.14 held as under:
"But we find it impossible to say that when the law
requires the satisfaction of a particular officer at a
particular time his satisfaction can be dispensed with
altogether. In our opinion, this provision is as
necessary and as substantial as attestation in the cases
of a will or a mortgage and is on the same footing as
the II subscribing " required in the case of the
candidate himself If there is no signature and no mark
the form would have to be rejected and their absence
could not be dismissed as technical and unsubstantial.
The "satisfaction" of the Returning Officer which the
rules require is not, in our opinion, any the less
important and imperative."
a) In Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah4, the Apex Court considered
the scope of Sections - 58, 17, 137 and 138 of the Act, 1872 and the facts
therein are not specifically denied. In paragraph No.16, the Apex Court
held as under:
"16. In Maroti Bansi Teli v. Radhabai [1943 SCC
OnLine MP 128], it has been laid down that the
matters sworn to by one party in the pleadings not
challenged either in pleadings or cross-examination
KL,J
by other party must be accepted as fully established.
The High Court of Calcutta in A.E.G.
Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian [1960 SCC OnLine Cal
44] has laid down that the party is obliged to put his
case in cross-examination of witnesses of opposite
party. The rule of putting one's version in cross-
examination is one of essential justice and not merely
technical one. A Division Bench of the Nagpur High
Court in Kuwarlal Amritlal v. Rekhlal
Koduram [1949 SCC OnLine MP 35] has laid down
that when attestation is not specifically challenged
and witness is not cross-examined regarding details
of attestation, it is sufficient for him to say that the
document was attested. If the other side wants to
challenge that statement, it is their duty, quite apart
from raising it in the pleadings, to cross-examine the
witness along those lines. A Division Bench of the
Patna High Court in Karnidan Sarda v. Sailaja Kanta
Mitra [1940 SCC OnLine Pat 288] has laid down that
it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the system
of administration of justice allows of cross-
examination of opposite party's witnesses for the
purpose of testing their evidence, and it must be
assumed that when the witnesses were not tested in
that way, their evidence is to be ordinarily accepted.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the High Court has
gravely erred in law in reversing the findings of the
first appellate court as to the factum of execution of
KL,J
the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff."
b) In Mrs. Murial Hyden2, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad considered the aspect of non-denial of facts specifically. It
held that material case of a party shall be put in cross-examination of
opposite party's witnesses to enable that party to meet that defence, and
it is a rule of essential justice and not merely a technical rule of evidence.
Failure to do so amounts to acceptance of the testimony given.
c) Thus, both respondent Nos.1 and 6 have not cross-examined
RW.1 - Returning Officer. They did not put any questions to her.
Therefore, failure to do so amounts to acceptance of testimony of RW.1.
d) In P. ORR and Sons (P) Ltd.3, the Apex Court considered the
meaning of 'immediate purpose', and held that 'immediate' means
"without delay", 'immediately' also means 'directly connected, not
secondary or remote' 'not separated by any intervening medium'. The
said clause denotes urgency.
e) In Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singh 12, the Apex Court
considered the burden of proof that election materially affected as
. (2002) 1 SCC 160
KL,J
prescribed by law is very strict, and in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 held as
under:
"15. A word about the pleadings. Section 83 of the
Act mandates an election petition to contain a concise
statement of the material facts on which the petitioner
relies. The rules of pleadings enable a civil dispute
being adjudicated upon by a fair trial and reaching a
just decision. A civil trial, more so when it relates to
an election dispute, where the fate not only of the
parties arrayed before the court but also of the entire
constituency is at a stake, the game has to be played
with open cards and not like a game of chess or hide
and seek. An election petition must set out all
material facts wherefrom inferences vital to the
success of the election petitioner and enabling the
court to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner
can be drawn subject to the averments being
substantiated by cogent evidence. Concise and
specific pleadings setting out all relevant material
facts, and then cogent affirmative evidence being
adduced in support of such averments, are
indispensable to the success of an election petition.
An election petition, if allowed, results in avoiding an
election and nullifying the success of a returned
candidate. It is a serious remedy. Therefore, an
election petition seeking relief on a ground under
Section 100(1)(d) of the Act, must precisely allege all
KL,J
material facts on which the petitioner relies in support
of the plea that the result of the election has been
materially affected. Unfortunately in the present case
all such material facts and circumstances are
conspicuous by their absence.
16. The law as regards the result of election
having been materially affected in case of improper
acceptance of nomination may be summed up as
under:
1. A case of result of the election, insofar as it
concerns the returned candidate, having been materially
affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination,
within the meaning of Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 has to be made
out by raising specific pleadings setting out all material
facts and adducing cogent evidence so as to enable a clear
finding being arrived at on the distribution of wasted
votes, that is, the manner in which the votes would have
been distributed if the candidate, whose nomination paper
was improperly accepted, was not in the fray.
2. Merely because the wasted votes are more than the
difference of votes secured by the returned candidate and
the candidate securing the next highest number of votes,
an inference as to the result of the election having been
materially affected cannot necessarily be drawn. The issue
is one of fact and the onus of proving it lies upon the
petitioner.
3. The burden of proving such material effect has to be
discharged by the election petitioner by adducing positive,
KL,J
satisfactory and cogent evidence. If the petitioner is
unable to adduce such evidence the burden is not
discharged and the election must stand. This rule may
operate harshly upon the petitioner seeking to set aside the
election on the ground of improper acceptance of a
nomination paper, but the court is not concerned with the
inconvenience resulting from the operation of the law.
Difficulty of proof cannot obviate the need of strict proof
or relax the rigour of required proof.
4. The burden of proof placed on the election
petitioner is very strict and so difficult to discharge as
nearing almost an impossibility. There is no room for any
guesswork, speculation, surmises or conjectures i.e. acting
on a mere possibility. It will not suffice merely to say that
all or the majority of wasted votes might have gone to the
next highest candidate. The law requires proof. How far
that proof should go or what it should contain is not
provided by the legislature.
5. The casting of votes at an election depends upon a
variety of factors and it is not possible for anyone to
predicate how many or which proportion of the votes will
go to one or the other of the candidates. It is not
permissible to accept the "ipse dixit" of witnesses coming
from one side or the other to say that all or some of the
votes would have gone to one or the other on some
supposed or imaginary ground."
In fact, in the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court held that an election
petition seeking relief on a ground under Section - 100 (1) (d) of the Act,
KL,J
1951, must precisely allege all material facts on which the petitioner
relies in support of the plea that the result of the election has been
materially affected. As discussed above, the election petitioner herein
has pleaded the same and proved it.
f) In the present case, the election petitioner specifically pleaded
that by accepting Ex.R2 - withdrawal form, without following due
procedure laid down under law, more particularly, Section - 37 (3) of the
Act, 1951, by respondent No.5, he was deprived of contesting in the
subject election. His signature was forged by respondent No.6 on
Exs.R1 and R2 in collusion with respondent No.1 and his TRS party
leaders submitted the same to respondent No.5, who in turn accepted the
same without following the procedure laid down under law. Therefore,
the same was materially affected the subject election. Thus, the election
petitioner pleaded the same and proved by producing the aforesaid
legally acceptable evidence.
g) In Natwarlal v. Bhartendra Singh 13, the Apex Court held that
in the matter of scrutiny of nomination papers, the Returning Officer
discharges or exercises a quasi judicial function and that once he comes
. (1953) 3 Ele.L.R. 408
KL,J
to a judicial decision on the matter, he has no right to review which has
to be specifically conferred upon the authorities other than the ordinary
courts. Relying on the said principle, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
at Hyderabad in Banala Krishna Murthy10 held that the Returning
Officer cannot review his decision, if any, and that if a thing is to be
done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner.
h) In Kisan Shankar Kathore7, the Apex Court in paragraph
No.43 held as under:
"43. When the information is given by a candidate
in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper
and objections are raised thereto questioning the
correctness of the information or alleging that there is
non-disclosure of certain important information, it
may not be possible for the Returning Officer at that
time to conduct a detailed examination. Summary
enquiry may not suffice. The present case is itself an
example which loudly demonstrates this. At the same
time, it would not be possible for the Returning
Officer to reject the nomination for want of
verification about the allegations made by the
objector. In such a case, when ultimately it is proved
that it was a case of non-disclosure and either the
affidavit was false or it did not contain complete
information leading to suppression, it can be held at
KL,J
that stage that the nomination was improperly
accepted. Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Election Commission,
rightly argued that such an enquiry can be only at a
later stage and the appropriate stage would be in an
election petition as in the instant case, when the
election is challenged. The grounds stated in Section
36 (2) are those which can be examined there and
then and on that basis the Returning Officer would be
in a position to reject the nomination. Likewise,
where the blanks are left in an affidavit, nomination
can be rejected there and then. In other cases where
detailed enquiry is needed, it would depend upon the
outcome thereof, in an election petition, as to whether
the nomination was properly accepted or it was a case
of improper acceptance. Once it is found that it was a
case of improper acceptance, as there was
misinformation or suppression of material
information, one can state that question of rejection in
such a case was only deferred to a later date. When
the Court gives such a finding, which would have
resulted in rejection, the effect would be same,
namely, such a candidate was not entitled to contest
and the election is void. Otherwise, it would be an
anomalous situation that even when criminal
proceedings under Section 125-A of the Act can be
initiated and the selected candidate is criminally
prosecuted and convicted, but the result of his
KL,J
election cannot be questioned. This cannot be
countenanced."
i) In Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar5, the Apex Court held that the
High Court was duty-bound to treat the matter on merits by framing
issues and thereafter calling for production of evidence in support of
their respective cases. The High Court should have examined the
veracity of the rival claims based on the evidence produced by the
parties and should have tested the correctness of the affidavits. The
opinion of the handwriting expert in that regard would have been
sufficient and on the basis of the same it could be possible for the High
Court to decide the entire lis between the parties. The High Court
despite being the court of original jurisdiction acted as a court of
appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the petition without allowing the
parties to produce evidence in support of their contentions. The Apex
Court further held that a quasi-judicial authority while deciding an issue
of fact may not insist upon a conclusive proof. While doing so, one has
to form a prima facie view. Indisputably, however, in terms of sub-
section (5) of Section - 36 in the Handbook for Returning Officers, if
any, objection is raised then while holding the summary inquiry in the
matter of taking a decision on the objection as to whether the same is
KL,J
valid or not, he is not only required to record his brief decision for the
same but further in case of doubt the benefit must go to the candidate
and the nomination paper should be held to be valid although his view
may be prima facie a plausible view or otherwise bona fide.
j) As discussed above, in the present case, respondent No.5 being
the Returning Officer, did not make an attempt to take a prima facie
view on receipt of Exs.R1 and R2 from respondent No.6, more
particularly, respondent No.6 is not the candidate and he is only a
proposer. The said fact was also admitted by RW.1 during her cross-
examination.
k) In Anakapalli Appalaraju11, a Division Bench of High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad considering the facts of the said case
held that the petitioner therein admitted the signatures appearing on the
notices of withdrawals were theirs; and pleaded that they were coerced to
sign those notices of withdrawals; that the respondents therein deny the
contention of the petitioners. Till the petitioner succeeds in proving that
the signatures were obtained under coercion, the validity of notices of
withdrawals continues to be operative. The question is, where does the
truth lie in between these rival contentions of the parties. Such a
KL,J
question can only be answered by a Court or a Tribunal acting on the
basis of evidence and after a full investigation into facts. Clearly a
summary inquiry by 2nd respondent therein can never serve the purpose.
The purpose of any inquiry under Rule 13 can only be to ascertain the
facts and find out the reality as different from appearances and declare
on that basis the rights of the parties. For the discharge of such a
responsibility, summary remedy is wholly inappropriate and inadequate
summary inquiry is a singularly unsuited instrument to out truth
entangled in the cobwebs of any serious controversy. It further held
summary inquiry would serve no purpose if it does not help to decide the
real question, whether the signatures are voluntary or not. Whether the
petitioners did not act with the same caste impulsion and did act
willingly sign the notices of withdrawals, may be entertaining a hope
that their withdrawals would not be submitted to the acceptance of the
second respondent therein and that they would themselves be returned to
the Municipal Council unopposed, are all questions which would require
careful factual investigation. Such an investigation can only be done
fully and properly by an Election Tribunal.
KL,J
l) As discussed above, in the present case, right from the
beginning, the election petitioner is alleging that his signature was forged
on Exs.R1 and R2 by respondent No.6 and submitted the same to
respondent No.5 in collusion with respondent No.1 and his party leaders.
Thus, he has specifically pleaded the same. Even at his instance, his
signatures on Exs.R1 to R3 were sent for expert's opinion and PW.2 -
expert gave his opinion vide Ex.X1 stating that the signatures of election
petitioner on Exs.R1 and R2 do not belong to him. Thus, to prove the
same, the election petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and examined
the expert as PW.2 and marked the Ex.X1 report, apart from filing
Exs.A9 to 11 and A14 - complaints. Therefore, the election petitioner is
standing on the better footing than the parties in the aforesaid decision.
m) In Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy
(dead) through Legal Representatives 14, the Apex Court held that the
Court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a
weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It may not be safe
to solely rely upon such evidence, and the Court may seek independent
. (2019) 14 SCC 220
KL,J
and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case. Generally, mere
expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it.
n) In Bhogendra Jha8, the Apex Court held that the Returning
Officer has no power to conduct roving inquiry.
o) In Birad Mal Singhvi9, the Apex Court held during the
scrutiny, the Returning Officer is under a statutory duty to satisfy
himself that the candidate who may have filed nomination paper
possesses the necessary constitutional qualification for contesting the
election. But, in the absence of any material before the Returning
Officer, he is not justified taking the entries in the electoral roll into
consideration and acting on the same. The decision of the Returning
Officer is not final. Enquiry during scrutiny is summary in nature as
there is no scope for any elaborate enquiry at that stage. Therefore, in an
election petition, it is open to a party to place fresh or additional material
before this Court to show that the Returning Officer's order rejecting the
nomination paper was improper. It is open to this Court to take a final
decision in the matter notwithstanding the order of the Returning Officer
rejecting the nomination paper. If, on the basis of the material placed
before this Court, it is proved that the candidate whose nomination paper
KL,J
had been rejected was qualified to contest the election it is open to this
Court to set aside the election. The proceedings in an election petition
are not in the nature of appeal against the order of the Returning Officer.
It is an original proceeding.
p) As discussed above, in the present case, the election petitioner
herein has specifically pleaded that his signature was forged on Exs.R1
and R2 by respondent No.6 in collusion with respondent No.1 and his
party leaders and submitted the same to respondent No.5, who in turn,
without following the mandatory procedure, without conducting enquiry
and without coming to a satisfaction as required under Section - 37 (3) of
the Act, 1951, accepted the same. She has not considered Ex.A9 -
complaint. Therefore, he has filed the present election petition pleading
the same and he has proved the forgery by examining PW.2 and Ex.X1 -
expert's opinion.
q) It is apt to note that Section - 37 (2) of the Act, 1951 says that
no person who has given a notice of withdrawal of his candidature under
sub-section (1) shall be allowed to cancel the notice. In Kameng Dolo6,
the Apex Court referring to the said provision held that it reflects the
sanctity of withdrawal by a candidate. Sub-section (3) of Section - 37, as
KL,J
is manifest, makes it obligatory on the part of the Returning Officer to be
satisfied as to the genuineness of the notice of withdrawal and the
identity of the person delivering it. Thereafter, he shall cause the notice
to be affixed in some conspicuous place in his office. The Apex Court
further held that the only thing that the Returning Officer has to see is to
verify the identity of the candidate and genuineness of the signature.
The other two categories who can issue the notice have to satisfy certain
conditions precedent. The notice has to be in writing, the proposer or the
election agent must be in that capacity and they must have been
authorized in this behalf in writing by such candidate. In the present
case, there has been total non-compliance with Section - 37 of the Act,
1951.
i) As discussed above, in the present case, respondent No.5 did
not even make an attempt to come to a satisfaction as to the genuineness
of the notice of withdrawal submitted by respondent No.6 and the
identity of respondent No.6 delivering it, more particularly, respondent
No.6 is not the candidature and is only a proposer. He has submitted
Ex.R2 withdrawal form in the absence of the election petitioner. The
said fact was also admitted by RW.1 during cross-examination.
KL,J
Therefore, there is violation of provision of Section - 37 (3) of the Act,
1951 by respondent No.5.
ii) In paragraph No.25 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court
considered the effect of acceptance of such withdrawal of the
candidature that is in total non-compliance with the law.
iii) The analysis of Apex Court in Kameng Dolo6 is that the
dictum makes it graphically clear that to sustain the ground as stipulated
under Section - 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act, 1951, the election petitioner
is required not only to plead and prove the ground but also to establish
that the result of the election of the returned candidate concerned has
been materially affected.
r) In Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari 15, the Apex
Court while dealing with an appeal arising from the judgment passed by
the High Court of Patna, where the election of the appellant was set
aside, observed that to set aside the election, the High Court heavily
placed reliance upon two decisions of the Apex Court, namely, Union of
India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms [(2002) 5 SCC 294]
and People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [(2003) 4
. (2012) 3 SCC 314
KL,J
SCC 399] and held that suppression of facts by the returned candidate
with regard to the assets and liability of his first wife and dependent
children born from that wedlock was breach of Article - 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution of India and for such breach and non-compliance, the
candidate who had not complied with and breached right to information
of electors and on the election to suffer consequence of such non-
compliance and breach and accordingly set aside the election. The Apex
Court further held that in the entire election petition there was no
pleading at all that suppression of the information by the returned
candidate in the affidavit filed along with nomination papers with regard
to first wife and dependent children from her and non-disclosure of that
assets and liabilities materially affected the result of the election.
i) The Apex Court also held that a reading of Section - 100 (1) (d)
(iv) of the Act, 1951 with Section - 83 of the Act, 1951 leaves no iota of
doubt that where a returned candidate is alleged to be guilty of non-
compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act, 1951 Act
or any Rules or Orders made thereunder and his election is sought to be
declared void on such ground, it is essential for the election petitioner to
aver by pleading material facts that the result of the election insofar as it
KL,J
concerned the returned candidate has been materially affected by such
breach or non-observance. If the election petition goes to trial then the
election petitioner also has to prove the charge of breach or non-
compliance as well as establish that the result of the election has been
materially affected. It is only on the basis of such pleading and proof
that the Court may be in a position to form opinion and record a finding
that breach or non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or
the Act, 1951 Act or any Rules or Orders made thereunder has materially
affected the result of the election before the election of the returned
candidate could be declared void.
ii) The Apex Court further held that a mere non-compliance or
breach of the Constitution or the statutory provisions noticed above, by
itself, does not result in invalidating the election of a returned candidate
under Section - 100 (1) (d) (iv). The sine qua non for declaring the
election of a returned candidate to be void on the ground under sub-
clause (iv) of Section - 100 (1) (d) is further proof of the fact that such
breach or non-observance has resulted in materially affecting the result
of the returned candidate. In other words, the violation or breach or non-
observation or non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or
KL,J
the Act, 1951 Act or the Rules or the Orders made thereunder, by itself,
does not render the election of a returned candidate void Section - 100
(1) (d) (iv). For the election petitioner to succeed on such ground viz.,
Section - 100 (1) (d) (iv), he has not only to plead and prove the ground
but also that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned
candidate has been materially affected.
s) In Rajendra Kumar Meshram v. Vanshmani Prasad
Verma 16, the Apex Court considered the violation under Section - 100
(1) (d) of the Act, 1951 and held that under Section - 100 (1) (d), an
election is liable to be declared void on the ground of improper
acceptance of a nomination if such improper acceptance of the
nomination has materially affected the result of the election. This is in
distinction to what is contained in Section - 100 (1) (c) i.e., improper
rejection of a nomination which itself is a sufficient ground for
invalidating the election without any further requirement of proof of
material effect of such rejection on the result of the election.
i) Relying on the said principle, in Kameng Dolo6, the Apex
Court drew a distinction between improper acceptance of a nomination
for such improper acceptance of the nomination has to materially affect
. (2016) 10 SCC 75
KL,J
the result of the election and the case of improper rejection of a
nomination which itself is a sufficient ground for invalidating the
election without any further requirement of proof or material effect of
such rejection on the result of the election. The first one comes under
Section - 100 (1) (d), the second one comes under Section - 100 (1) (c).
ii) It further held that Section - 37 (3) of the Act, 1951 requires
the satisfaction of the Returning Officer as to the genuineness of the
notice of withdrawal and the identity of the person delivering it. The
words have their own significance. The language employed in Section -
37 cannot be diluted.
t) In Rattan Anmol Singh1, the Apex Court while dealing with
the satisfaction of the Returning Officer held that when the law requires
the satisfaction of a particular officer at a particular time his satisfaction
can be dispensed with altogether. Such provision is as necessary and as
substantial as attestation in the cases of a will or a mortgage and is on the
same footing as the "subscribing" required in the case of the candidate
himself. If there is no signature and no mark the form would have to be
rejected and their absence could not be dismissed as technical and
KL,J
unsubstantial. The "satisfaction" of the Returning Officer which the rules
require is not any the less important and is imperative.
i) Improper rejection of nomination will materially affect the
result of the election.
ii) The Apex Court further held that the language employed in
Section - 37 of the Act, 1951, is absolutely plain, unambiguous and
unequivocal. It only admits of a singular interpretation. It is because the
intention of Parliament is that due care and caution has to be taken in
letter and spirit so that no confusion is created. Paragraph No.44 of the
judgment in Kameng Dolo6 is relevant and the same is extracted as
under:
"44. When there is no contest, and a desirable
candidate for some reason is kept out of fray, the
principle laid down in Vishwanatha
Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda [ AIR 1969
SC 604] has to be made applicable. We are disposed
to think so, when in transgression of the statutory
provision, a candidate's candidature is allowed to be
withdrawn, it will tantamount to sacrilege of
democracy. That is why, the mandate of Section 37 of
the Act has been so carefully worded. The legislature
has taken pains to provide safeguards since illegal
acceptance of withdrawal has the potentiality to
KL,J
destroy the base of democracy and corrode its
primary roots. The principle stated
in Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar [(2015) 3 SCC 467],
is to the effect that the sanctity of the electoral
process imperatively commands that each candidate
owes and is under an obligation that a fair election is
held and freedom in the exercise of the judgment
which engulfs a voter's right, a free choice, in
selecting the candidate whom he believes to be best
fitted to represent the constituency, has to be given
due weightage, are never to be eroded. The
responsibility of a Returning Officer being statutorily
significant, he has to keep himself alive to every facet
and not act in a manner that will create a dent or
hollowness in the election process."
u) In view of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court,
as discussed above, in the present case, it is the specific contention of the
election petitioner that his signature was forged by respondent No.6 in
collusion with respondent No.1 and his party leaders on Exs.R1 and R2
and submitted the same to respondent No.5, who in turn, without coming
to satisfaction and without making an attempt with regard to genuinity of
the signatures and without even conducting summary enquiry accepted
the same. Therefore, the said action of respondent No.5 is in violatin of
Section - 37 (3) of the Act, 1951. The election petitioner has pleaded the
KL,J
same right from the beginning and proved the same beyond reasonable
doubt by producing legally acceptable evidence.
v) By virtue of the acceptance of Ex.R2 - withdrawal form, the
election petitioner deprived from participating in the subject election.
Therefore, the subject election was materially affected.
w) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the contention of Mr.
B. Nalin Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1
that for the fault of respondent No.5, respondent No.1 cannot be
penalized is unsustainable. Election process is sacrosanct. Free and fair
election is the sacrosanct thread that weaves our Country's democratic
structure. The procedure laid down under Act, 1951 and Rules, 1961
have to be followed scrupulously without any deviation. The Returning
Officer cannot say go-by to the said procedure. Thus, the aforesaid issue
Nos.(i), (iii), (iv) and (v) are answered in favour of the election petitioner
and against respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6.
ISSUE No.(ii):
14. As discussed above, due to lapses of respondent No.5 in
accepting Ex.R2 - withdrawal form, the election petitioner was deprived
from contesting in the subject election. It is not a fair election. There is
collusion between respondent Nos.1 and 6. However, the election
KL,J
petitioner failed to establish that even respondent No.5 also colluded
with respondent Nos.1 and 6. But, her action in accepting Ex.R2 -
withdrawal form without coming to the satisfaction in terms of Section -
37 (3) of the Act, 1951 definitely affected the election materially. This
issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE No.(vi):
15. As discussed above, Section - 100 of the Act, 1951 deals with
grounds for declaring election to be void, and Section - 100 (1) (d) (iv)
says that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns, a returned
candidate, has been materially affected, by any non-compliance with the
provisions of the Constitution or of the Act, 1951 or of any Rules or
Orders made under the said Act, the High Court shall declare the election
of the returned candidate to be void. As discussed above, it is
specifically pleaded and proved by the election petitioner that there is
violation of Section - 37 (3) of the Act, 1951 by respondent No.5 -
Returning Officer. Due to the same, the election petitioner was deprived
from contesting in the subject election and, thus the subject election was
materially affected. Therefore, definitely, it is a ground to declare the
subject election to be void. Issue No.6 is answered in favour of the
election petitioner.
KL,J
ISSUE Nos.(vii) and (ix):
16. As discussed above, respondent No.5 failed to follow the
mandatory procedure laid down under Section - 37 (3) of the Act, 1951.
Thus, respondent No.5 has acted contrary to the provisions of the Act,
1951 in accepting the notice of withdrawal (Ex.R2) submitted by
respondent No.6. Respondent No.5 failed to comply with such
provisions and accepted Ex.R2 - notice of withdrawal in violation of
Section - 37 (3) of the Act, 1951. Therefore, both these issues are
answered in favour of the election petitioner.
ISSUE No.(viii):
17. As discussed above, Section - 100 (1) (c) of the Act, 1951
deals with rejection of nomination improperly. But, in the present case,
acceptance of notice of withdrawal is in violation of Section - 37 (3) of
the Act, 1951. Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the election
petitioner herein.
ISSUE No.(x):
18. As discussed above, by accepting Ex.R2 - withdrawal form by
respondent No.5 - Returning Officer is in violation of Section - 35 (3) of
the Act, 1951 and thus, deprived the election petitioner from contesting
KL,J
in the subject election. It is a ground to declare the election of
respondent No.1 - returned candidate as void. The affect is, once the
election of respondent No.1 - returned candidate is declared as void,
since the election petitioner is not a contestant of the said election.
Therefore, fresh election has to be conducted. This issue is answered
accordingly.
ISSUE No.(xi):
19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the subject election
i.e., Telangana Legislative Council from 01-Adilabad Local Authorities'
Constituency, dated 14.12.2021 and published in Telangana Gazette 65,
dated 15.12.2021 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside by
declaring it as void. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE No.(xii):
20. In view of the above discussion, the election petitioner was
deprived from contesting the subject election for no fault on his part and,
therefore, he is entitled for costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only). This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE No.(xiii):
KL,J
21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Election
Petition is allowed declaring the subject election i.e., Telangana
Legislative Council from 01-Adilabad Local Authorities' Constituency,
dated 14.12.2021 published in Telangana Gazette 65, dated 15.12.2021
as void and fresh election shall be conducted. The election petitioner is
entitled for costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only).
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
Election Petition, stands closed.
ON BENCH:
At the request of learned counsel for respondent No.1 to enable
him to take steps, this order is suspended for a period of four (04) weeks
from today.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
3rd May, 2024
Mgr
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner:
PW.1: Mr. Pathireddy Rajeshwar Reddy (Election Petitioner)
PW.2: Mr. R.B. Bhosale (Expert)
For Respondents:
RW.1: Ms. Sikta Patnaik (Returning Officer)
RW.2: Mr. Vittal Dande (Returned Candidate & R-1)
RW.3: Mr. Singari Kishan (Respondent No.6)
KL,J
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
ELECTION PETITIONER
Exhibit Date Description of document
Ex.P1 09.11.2021 Memo No.3133/ELECS.D/A2/2021-6 issued by
the Chief Electoral Officer to hold biennial
election with election program to MLC (Local
Authority) Constituency along with S.65B
Certificate under Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Ex.P2 16.11.2021 Gazette Notification No.49 to hold Elections to
Local Authorities' Constituency.
Ex.P3 13.11.2021 Print-out from the Official Telangana CEO
Website as to contact details of RO/AROS along
with S.65B Certificate under Indian Evidence
Act, 1872.
Ex.P4 23.11.2021 Original Receipt for nomination paper and Notice
of scrutiny
Ex.P5 23.11.2021 Copy of List of nominated candidates handed
over to Election Petitioner at the time of Scrutiny.
Ex.P6 -- Print out from CEO Website as to list of
nominated candidates along with S.65B
certificate under Indian Evidence Act, 1672.
Ex.P7 -- Print out from CEO website as to list of
withdrawal or rejected candidates showing that
the withdrawal list in not uploaded by the RO
along with S.65B Certificate under Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
Ex.P8 26.11.2021 Copy of list of contesting Candidates in Form 7B
affixed on the Notice Board of Respondent No.5.
Ex.P9 26.11.2021 Whatsapp chat regarding Complaint to
Respondent No.5 Print out along with S.65B
Certificate under Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(Neat copy of the same is also filed).
Ex.P10 26.11.2021- Complaint regarding forgery of withdrawal Letter
to Respondent No.5 & Neat copy of the same.
Ex.P11 29.11.2021 Complaint to Respondent No.4 (Chief Electoral
Officer).
Ex.P12 27.11.2021 Application seeking Certified Copies filed before
Respondent No.5 with Copy application.
KL,J
Ex.A13 15.12.2021 Gazette Notification No.65 declaring Respondent
No.1 as Elected Candidate as per Form 23.
Ex.A14 27.11.2021 Office copy of Complaint to PS against
Respondent No.6 with receipt and its fair copy.
Ex.A15 28.11.2021 Copy of Criminal Complaint filed by Smt.
Shantapuri Sharda along with FIR.
Ex.A16 06.12.2021 CC of Order in W.P.No 32201 of 2021
Ex.A17 -- Copy of Aadhaar Card of the Election Petitioner.
Ex.A18 -- Print-out of case details of W.P. No.32201 of 21
Ex.A19 -- Pen-driver given under RTI Act by R-5
Ex.A20 -- Notice U/O.XII, R.8 of CPC given by the
election petitioner to R-5 to produce originals.
Ex.A21 01.12.2021 Writ Petition and Affidavit in WP No.32201/21
Respondents
Exhibit Date Description of document
Ex.R1 -- Withdrawal authorization form
Ex.R2 26.11.2021 Notice of withdrawal
Ex.R3 23.11.2021 Original Nomination Papers
Ex.R4 26.11.2021 Original CCTV footage of the Collectorate Office
recorded in a pen driver
Ex.R5 26.11.2021 Report submitted by RW.1 to CEO, Telangana
Ex.R6 February, Relevant pages from the Hand Book for R.O. for
2016 election to the Council of States and State Legislative
Councils (Page Nos.63 to 77 and 217 to 219)
Ex.R7 17.05.2022 Response issued under RTI Act to the election
petitioner enclosing CCTV footage of Collectorate
Office dt.26.11.2021 from 11.00 AM to 5.00 PM
X-SERIES
Exhibit Date Description of document
Ex.X1 29.11.2023 Expert's Opinion/Report
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
3rd May, 2024
Mgr
