Telangana High Court
Thumu Venkata Narayana vs Narapogu Venkateswar Rao ... on 15 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.644 OF 2023
ORDER :
This revision is filed against the order dated 18.11.2022 passed in E.O.P.No.9 of 2019 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Election Tribunal at Madhira (for short 'the Election Tribunal').
2. E.O.P.No.9 of 2019 is filed by the revision petitioner under Section 242 of Telangana Panchayath Raj Act, 2018 (for short 'Act, 2018'), praying to declare the election of respondent No.1, therein for the post of Sarpanch of Gollagudem Gram Panchayat, Thallada (M), Khammam District as null and void as he submitted false self- declaration enclosed with nomination form; to declare the respondent No.2 as successful candidate as duly elected for the post of Sarpanch of Gundlagudem Gram Panchayat.
3. Petitioner filed the said E.O.P., stating that in pursuance of the election notification issued for the election of Sarpanch of Gollagudem Gram Panchayat, which was reserved for SC General category respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their nominations. The respondent No.1 was allotted election symbol of Scissor and respondent No.2 was allotted election symbol of Ring. The election 2 was held on 25.01.2019 and on the same day the respondent No.1-Narapogu Venkateswar Rao, was declared as elected Sarpanch of Gundlagudem Village with a majority of 21 votes and respondent No.2 is the losing candidate.
4. The respondent No.1 has submitted his nomination form on 12.01.2019 to the respondent No.4 with false information. In the nomination form along with self-declaration in para No.2 i.e., PAN and Income Tax returns, his own income is shown as Rs.2,50,000/- p.a., and his wife income is shown as Rs.3,50,000/- p.a. In fact the respondent No.1 is doing business in the name and style of Tirumala Travels at Kistapuram, Tallada and also running P.G. Hostel for boys and girls at Hyderabad and earning approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The respondent No.1 submitted Income tax returns for the year 2017-18 showing his annual income of Rs.7,50,000/- and obtained loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from Andhra Bank and the same was also shown in self- declaration form. The income shown by the respondent No.1 in self-declaration form is not correct as he obtained Rs.10,00,000/- loan from Andhra Bank by showing his income as Rs.7,50,000/- p.a. Further, the wife of respondent No.1 is working as CDPO Group-Officer in ICDS at Jangareddygudem and getting salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The respondent No.1 3 has shown the income of his wife as Rs.3,50,000/- p.a., which is inconsistent with actual income. The respondent No.1 has also not shown the employment particulars of his wife and both are having separate bank accounts in their names, but whereas, the respondent No.1 intentionally stated that no accounts are existing in their names in the self-declaration form. But surprisingly, he enclosed a copy of his account in Bank of India at Hyderabad. The respondent No.1 has falsely declared in the declaration form that he has landed property either self acquired or ancestral properties in his name and in the name of his wife.
5. Respondent No.1 has got ancestral landed property to an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.358 of Tallada Revenue village and his wife got house site to an extent of 157.66 Sq yards in Sy.No.399 situated at Velugumatla village of Khammam Municipal Corporation. Respondent No.1 further submitted that he obtained car loan from DCCB, Khammam Branch by hypothecating an Innova Car. The said loan is still pending, but the respondent No.1 intentionally not shown the above said loan in his self-declaration form enclosed with nomination. The nomination forms of the contesting candidates were exhibited in T.Poll Web site. The respondent No.1 is a post graduate, knowingly and intentionally gave false information in his self-declaration enclosed to the 4 nomination form and suppressed the real facts. As such, the nomination submitted by respondent No.1 is null and void and declaration of result as respondent No.1 elected as Sarpanch is also null and void and further submitted that petitioner is a voter having vote in 6th Ward and he came to know the declaration particulars of respondent No.1 on 25.01.2019 and the same was informed to respondent No.3, but he paid deaf ear. Therefore, he filed the said E.O.P.
6. Respondent No.1 therein filed counter denying the averments in the petition and contended that regarding income shown in the nomination form, the income of a person varies from one month to another month and the aggregate income was shown prior to the date of getting the said loan. He further contended that the petitioner has shown the monthly income of his wife by imagination. There is no column or information sought by the election agency directing to mention their account numbers and Banks, even though there are no amounts lying to the credit of the respective spouses. The petitioner has misconceived the said rules and made false allegations and as per the registered sale deed dated 21.10.2017, filed by the petitioner, the value of the site was shown as Rs.1,58,000/- but the petitioner has alleged that it is valued at Rs.20,00,000/- on 22.02.2019. That the said site does 5 not belongs to his wife and she never purchased the same. With regard to car loan, as respondent No.1 belongs to scheduled caste, the Government has to pay concession of the said loan. As such, he is not liable to pay any amount. The allegation with regard to false information in his self-declaration enclosed to the nomination form is vague, totally false and in correct. The further allegation that petitioner informed to respondent No.3 and he paid deaf ear is false. He further contended that after declaration of election results, there is no other go except to file the election petition by un-successful candidate, on the irregularities or violation of mandatory provisions of law, during conduct of election process. Petitioner did not mention the type of information or objections. There are no cogent reasons to allow the petition and prayed the Court to dismiss the E.O.P.
7. The respondent No.2 filed counter stating that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the contesting candidates for the post of Sarpanch and they filed nomination forms for the post of Sarpanch. It is further contended that respondent No.1 filed his nomination along with self-declaration with false and wrong information, in fact, respondent No.1 is doing business in the name and style of Tirumala Travels at Kistapuram village of Thallada Mandal and also running P.G. Hostel for boys and girls at Hyderabad and he is 6 also having landed property and other sources of income, but the same was not mentioned in his declaration form and as he filed nomination form with false information, his election is null and void. As such he prayed the Court to declare the election of respondent No.1 as null and void.
8. Respondent Nos.3 to 7 therein filed counter denying the contents of petition stating that petitioner has failed to give proper representation or appeals to the Election authority immediately after conclusion of elections, but simply approached the Tribunal with a false and baseless allegations and the entire election process has been concluded in fair manner as per the procedure laid down by the authority and the Rules framed under the Act, 2018. Further, with regard to counting of votes for the post of Sarpanch, Gollagudem Gram Panchayat was conducted in a fair manner and respondent No.1 was elected as Sarpanch with majority of 21 votes and at the time of scrutiny of nominations, petitioner did not raise any objection as raised before the Tribunal or filed any documentary proof before the authorities at any point of time and election process was conducted in fair and transparent manner. As such there is no need to declare the election of respondent No.1 as null and void and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7
9. To prove the contentions, petitioner examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1 was examined as Rw.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.4 are marked and the Court examined Cws.1 to 5 and Exs.C.1 to C.4 are marked.
10. Considering the evidence on record and the submissions, the Court below dismissed the Election petition. Against the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.
11. Heard Sri Kasibhatla Saketh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Election Tribunal erroneously dismissed the election petition on the ground that petitioner is not a contesting candidate which is contrary to Section 242 of the Act, 2018 and also observed that no harm is caused to the petitioner for the acts of respondent No.1 and also observed that petitioner did not object to the wrong disclosure or non-disclosure of assets and liabilities of respondent No.1 before the elections authorities. The Election Tribunal erroneously dismissed the election petition on the ground that no 8 other voter or contesting candidate supports the version of petitioner with regard to the election process and that other voters of Gollagudem Gram Panchayat never raised any objection.
13. The Election Tribunal also observed that the election petition has become infructuous, as the respondent No.2 died during the course of trial, whereas, the first prayer of the petitioner is not considered by the Election Tribunal and it erroneously dismissed the election petition without examining the substantial material evidence placed before it by the petitioner to prove the corrupt practices adopted by the respondent No.1. It is also contended that the Election Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that petitioner herein could not have objected to the nomination form along with self-declaration form at the time of scrutiny because as per Rule 11 of the Act, 2018, no other candidate shall be present at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers and the Election Tribunal erroneously dismissed the petition on flimsy grounds. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order and declare the election of respondent No.1 as null and void.
9
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that there is no illegality in the order of the Election Tribunal. The election petition is filed on flimsy grounds, further the documents filed by the Court witnesses are Photostat copies which cannot be relied on and the main contention of the respondent No.1 is that there are no grounds to disqualify the candidature of respondent No.1, where there are no criminal antecedents. Therefore, there are no merits in the revision petition and prayed the Court to dismiss this revision petition.
15. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material placed on record, now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the Election Tribunal needs any interference ? POINT :
16. The revision petitioner herein prays the Court to declare the election of respondent No.1 as null and void and he shall be disqualified from contesting in any elections.
17. Chapter IX-A of IPC deals with offences relating to elections. The relevant section applicable to this case, reads as under :
"171 A. "Candidate", "Electoral right" defined.--For the purposes of this Chapter-- 2 [(a) "candidate" means a person who has been nominated as a candidate at any election;] (b) "electoral right" means the right of a person to 10 stand, or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being, a candidate or to vote or refrain from voting at an election."
18. The only ground relied on by the revision petitioner is to declare the election of respondent No.1 as null and void is that respondent No.1 has submitted wrong information in the declaration form while submitting the nomination form under Part-III under the heading of Details of PAN and status of filing of Income Tax return, he has submitted his income as Rs.2,50,000/- which is wrong and Rs.3,50,000/- income is shown as his wife's income and in Column No.5 A, the details of investments, income and FDR's are also not properly mentioned. In Column No.5 B, the details of immovable assets are mentioned as Nil and in Column No.6 details of loans also, he has not mentioned it correctly. Therefore, the respondent No.1 adopted corrupt practice which comes under Section 22 of the Act, 2018 and his election has to be declared as null and void.
19. To prove the same, revision petitioner himself was examined as Pw.1 before the Election Tribunal and also relied on Exs.A.1 to A.4. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.9202 of 2017 dated 21.10.2017 belonging to the wife of respondent No.1, Ex.A.2 is the original voter I.D card of petitioner, Ex.A.3 is the certified copies of pahanies pertaining to the properties in different survey numbers of respondent No.1 and 11 Ex.A.4 is Dharani copy regarding Sy.No.346/a/1/2, 358/a/1 of Thallada Village.
20. On behalf of the respondents, Exs.B.1 and B.2 are marked which are nomination forms and the Election Tribunal summoned Cw.1-Ather Ali, Returning Officer, Cw.2-B.Apurupa, Manager, UBI Thalida, Cw.3-K.Ramya Sree, Manager DCCB, Khammam, Cw.4- D.Rama Chander Rao, Income Tax Officer and Cw.5-GVV Anand, Income Tax Officer.
21. The revision petitioner needs to prove the allegations made against the respondent No.1 with cogent evidence. The evidence of petitioner is reiteration of his petition and Cw.1 is the Court witness who is the Returning Officer. His evidence is that he was appointed as Returning Officer for receiving nomination forms in Gram panchayat elections at Gollagudem, that he received six nominations out of which four were withdrawn and two nomination forms of respondents 1 and 2 were left. He further stated that respondent No.1 has filed two sets of nomination forms on 12.01.2019 and 13.01.2019 and after verification, the nomination form dated 12.01.2019 was accepted and the same was affixed on the notice board calling for objections, but they did not receive any objections on the nominations from the general 12 public or contesting candidates. During cross-examination by the counsel for petitioner, he admitted that they supply nomination forms with self-declaration forms to the contesting candidates and the contesting candidates can file two or three nominations at a time and they have to accept one of the form and discard the other with specific reasons. They generally do not verify self-declaration particulars. Cw.1 further admitted that if they are found to be clerical mistakes and minor mistakes, the same are directed to take it in favour of the contesting candidates as per the written instructions and they are not concerned with the self-declaration forms and it is for the candidate to fill up the blanks and they also accept even if it is left blank. During the course of cross- examination of learned counsel for respondent No.1, Cw.1 admitted that the date mentioned on the first page of nomination form is by mistake and not wontedly by the proposer and the next page of Para-II reflects correct date. He further admitted that in Part-IV, he has mentioned the date and time and the nomination form was accepted on the same day. He further admitted that it is not their duty to verify the details of the declaration made by the contesting candidate.
22. The evidence of Cw.1 is no way useful to the petitioner as he has to accept the nomination form, and it is not their duty to verify 13 the declaration made by the contesting candidate. Cw.2-B. Apurupa, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Thallada stated that loan was obtained before amalgamation and respondent No.1 has not obtained any loan from their Bank and this loan is Mudra Loan granted by Central Government. She further admitted that she personally got issued the documents in the year 2017-18, I.T assessment and the loan issuing Bank has obtained surety even if it is not required and that she had no information regarding loan, except photocopies and they are not authorized to issue information regarding the bank loan account when filed under the Right to Information Act.
23. Cw.3-K.Ramya Sree, Branch Manager, DCCB, Khammam deposed that there is car loan in their Bank in the name of Tirumala Travels and the same was sanctioned on 21.10.2015 for an amount of Rs11,30,000/- and there is subsidy of Rs.5,00,000/- to the loan account and there is an outstanding amount of Rs.4,17,464/- due as on 13.01.2019. Ex.C.2 is the car loan particulars of respondent No.1 along with bank loan letter. In cross-examination she admitted that generally they have to issue certified copy, but it was not issued in the present case. She further stated that loan was granted by DCCB, Khammam, but subsidy was granted by SC Corporation, Telangana. 14
24. The evidence of Cws.2 and 3 is to prove that other loans which are not mentioned in the declaration form, whereas Cw.3 admitted that the outstanding loan amount due is Rs.4,17,464/-.
25. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is that he has to gain subsidy from SC Corporation, therefore, he has not shown the same in declaration form and Cw.3 evidence is no way useful to the petitioner as no certified copy is filed by him. Cws.4 and 5 are the Income Tax Officers and according to them, one Gunturu Satyavathi submitted I.T returns for the year 2019- 2020 and she has not filed any returns for the year 2018-19. In cross-examination of Cw.4 he admitted that the income tax was deducted by the Government as she is a Government employee. Cw.5 deposed that they sent a letter to the Court regarding N.Venkateswarlu. Ex.C.4 is the letter sent from Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad.
26. As regards the income tax returns of spouse, as she is a Government employee there must be salary deduction of income tax to be paid by the employee and Cw.4 deposed the same. Further, the respondent No.1 filed Pan number of both parties and therefore they have not submitted the same along with the declaration form. As such, the said suppression is also not proved 15 by the revision petitioner to show that the declaration from is not correctly filled.
27. The disqualification of a candidate is defined in Section 21 of the Act, 2018, that a person who has been convicted by a Criminal Court for an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 or for an offence involving moral delinquency shall be disqualified for election as a Member for a period of five years from the date of conviction or where he is sentenced to imprisonment while undergoing sentence and after a period of five years from the date of expiration thereof, or on the date of filing nomination he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court or an applicant to be adjudicated to be an insolvent or an un-discharged insolvent or interested in a subsisting contract made with, or any work being done for, the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Praja Parishad, Zilla Praja Parishad or any State or Central Government or already a member of a Nagar Panchayat or a Municipality constituted under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965 and a person having more than two children shall be disqualified for election or for continuing as member and Section 22 says that any person who is convicted of any offence punishable under Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and any person against whom a finding of having indulged in any corrupt practice is recorded in 16 the verdict in an election petition filed in accordance with section 242, or any person convicted of an offence punishable under Chapter II of Part V of this Act, shall be disqualified for contesting in any election held under this Act, for a period of six years from the date of such conviction or verdict, as the case may be. A person may be disqualified if the candidate has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the Act, 2018 and has no good reason or justification for the failure, the State Election Commission shall, after following the procedure prescribed, by order published in the Telangana Gazette declare him, to be ineligible for a period of three years from the date of the said order to contest any election held for any office under this Act; and to have ceased to hold office in case he is elected and disqualification on ground of corrupt practice of election offences.
28. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in Krishna Moorthy Vs Sivakumar and Others 1 wherein it was held that any candidate can challenge who has right to vote. This Court is not disputing the right of petitioner to file election petition, as he is a voter of the said constituency, whereas, in the said judgment, it is relied on the criminal 1 (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 467 17 antecedents and there is no evidence on record to prove the criminal antecedents of respondent No.1. As such, the said judgment is no way useful to declare the election of respondent No.1 as null and void.
29. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Malaichami Vs M.Andi Ambalam and Others 2 wherein in Para No.31 it is observed as under :
"Finally we must deal with the appeal made to us that the justice should be done irrespective of technicalities. Justice has got to be done according to law. A Tribunal with limited jurisdiction cannot go beyond the procedure laid down by the statute for its functioning. If it does so it would be acting without jurisdiction."
30. In the present case, the Election Tribunal rightly discussed the evidence on record, hence, the above judgment is not applicable to the present case. He also relied on the judgment in Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla Vs Union of India and Others 3. The said judgment is not pertaining to the Act, 2018 and it relates to Representation of the People Act, 1951, wherein in Para 55 it was observed as under :
"The information regarding the sources of income of the candidates and their associates would in our opinion, certainly help the voter to make an informed choice of the candidate to represent the constituency in the legislature. It is, therefore, a part of the fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) as explained by this Court in ADR Case."2
(1973) 2 Supreme Court Cases 170 3 (2018) 4 Supreme Court Cases 699 18
31. In the present case, though it is a Panchayat Raj Act, respondent No.1 mentioned his income and also pan number. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner does not come to his aid. Though, petitioner mentioned certain inconsistencies in declaration form, the Court witnesses Cws.1 and 2, and the photocopies which are no way useful to the petitioner as all documents are not admissible in evidence. Further, the evidence of Cw.4 and Cw.5 is also no way useful to the revision petitioner as the spouse of respondent No.1 is a Government employee and it is the duty of the employer to deduct income tax amount. Further, there is no column in the declaration form to mention the occupation of spouse. As such, viewed from any angle, there are no infirmities in the order of the Election Tribunal and there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. There are no merits in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
32. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ K. SUJANA, J Date :15.04.2024 Rds