Telangana High Court
Mahesh Kumar vs Chandra Sekhar on 4 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.481 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba- Gadwal District in IA.No. 330 of 2022 in EOP. No. 05 of 2022.
2. Heard Sri CH. Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner and M/s. Srilekha Pujari, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
3. The brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of this Revision Petition is that a gazette notification dated 07.01.2020 was issued by the Telangana State Election Commission for election of Ward Members of Gadwal Town Municipality scheduling the date of poll as 22.01.2020; that accordingly, elections were held and results were declared on 25.01.2020; that petitioner herein was the successful candidate from Ward No.31 and respondent No.1 was the unsuccessful candidate in the said election. While so, respondent No.1 herein filed EOP.No.05 of 2020 under Section 233 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2019') on the file of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar 2 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 District, to declare election of the revision petitioner as Ward Member from 31 Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality as void and to set aside the same; and further, to declare respondent No.1 herein as elected Ward Member from 31 Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality.
4. In the said EOP, respondent No.1 herein primarily contended that the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules and Orders made under the Telangana Municipalities and Municipal Corporations Rules, 2020 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, were not complied with, thereby materially affecting the result of election insofar as revision petitioner is concerned and therefore, the election of revision petitioner, being void and inoperative, is liable to be set aside.
5. Revision petitioner entered appearance and filed an application in I.A.No. 44 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of the EOP on the following grounds:-
(i)That the III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not a constituted Election Tribunal and therefore, the said 3 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 Court has no legal jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the Election Petition on merits.
(ii) That the Election Petition does not disclose cause of action to challenge legally and validly elected returned candidate.
(iii)That the Election Petition is not in accordance with the mandatory statutory provisions of the Act, 2019 and the Rules, 2020, since respondent No.1 herein failed to deposit security amount before the Court while presenting the Election Petition, which is in contravention of Rule 8(1)(ii) of the Rules 2020.
6. It was further averred that III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not Principal District Judge for Mahabubnagar District, in terms of Section 2(4) of CPC, Section 10 of AP Civil Courts Act, 1972 and also under Section 3(17) of General Clauses Act, 1897, therefore, the said Court cannot be construed as Election Tribunal to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition on merits. It was further averred that the State Government, on revenue side, has reorganized the Districts, whereunder Mahabubnagar District was divided into five Districts, consequence of which Jogulamba- 4
LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 Gadwal District was formed, however, on judicial side, no such reorganization of Districts in Telangana was done by the High Court of Telangana and as such, III Additional District Judge, Gadwal cannot be treated as the Principal District Judge for Jogulamba-Gadwal District to entertain, try and dispose of the Election Petition.
7. Respondent No.1 herein filed counter resisting the said application and contended that as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules, 2020, when more than one District Judge is having territorial jurisdiction, then Principal District Judge will act as 'Election Tribunal' as per the intent of State legislature. It was further stated that the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Gadwal is functioning as independent judiciary having proper territorial jurisdiction over Jogulamba-Gadwal District and the said Court is not under the control of Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District.
8. Insofar as payment of security amount is concerned, it was averred that he had deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- in the Section of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and the same was accepted and in fact, the Section of the said Court never took such an objection.
5
LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024
9. He further stated that if the pleadings in the Election Petition are read in whole, cause of action for filing Election Petition is made out.
10. By stating thus, respondent No.1 herein contended that the said application filed by revision petitioner is frivolous and also abuse of process of law and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. The III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, in the light of the judgment dated 30.11.2021 of this Court in CRP.No. 481 of 2024, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2021 has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition and therefore, restrained itself from adjudicating the other grounds raised by respondent No.1 herein and ultimately, partly allowed the application and returned the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presenting the same before proper forum.
12. Consequent upon return of the Election Petition, respondent No.1 herein presented the same before the Election Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, and the same was re-numbered as EOP.No.05 of 2022. During the pendency of the said EOP, the revision petitioner again filed an application in 6 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 IA.No.330 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) CPC to reject the EOP on the ground that respondent No.1 herein has not deposited the security amount as required under Section 8(1)(ii) of Act, 2019 and Rules, 2020, and secondly, the EOP does not disclose the cause of action. They reiterated the other contentions raised in the Election Petition filed before the Hon'ble III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.
13. Respondent No.1 herein filed counter resisting the said application and contended that the allegations made in the application are not even pleaded in the counter filed in the Election Petition; that the said application is filed after commencement of trial with mala fide intention to protract the Election Petition and the same is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
14. The Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District while dismissing the said application, vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023, observed that revision petitioner has not pressed for disposal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC when the same was filed before the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and has came with the present application by harping upon the point of limitation which is mixed 7 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 question of fact and law and therefore, at the threshold the Election Petition cannot be thrown out on the said ground alone.
15. The Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District has further observed that the cause of action includes bundle of facts and as such, the averments made in the plaint alone has to be considered while considering the application for rejection of plaint. It further observed that suppression of material facts at the time of filing of nomination is said to be cause of action for questioning the election of the revision petitioner.
16. Aggrieved by the said order of the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, the present Revision Petition is filed.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that pursuant to the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, returning the Election Petition, the same was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, who was having jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition, therefore, it is obvious that respondent No.1 herein have initially approached wrong forum. He further contended that there was no cause of action for filing Election 8 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 Petition for want of compliance of mandatory provisions under the Act, 2019 and the Rules, 2020 and that the Election Petition is filed beyond the period of limitation. Learned senior counsel specifically contended that the time spent before a wrong forum cannot be condoned in Election Petition by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act and all these aspects were not considered by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in the impugned order andhad erroneously dismissed the application filed seeking to reject the Election Petition. He further contended that the Act, 2019, is a self-contained Act, wherein specific time has been prescribed for filing Election Petition and the said Act being a Special Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the Election Petitions. He further contended that deposit of security amount is mandatory as per Rule 8(1)(ii) of Rules, 2020 and since respondent No.1 herein failed to comply with the said provision, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected on that ground also.
18. To buttress his contentions as regards the period of limitation, learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Devi Vs. Manisha Devi and 9 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 others 1, the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Maddipatla Jagan Mohan Rao Vs. Akula Nagamalleswari and others 2 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Shaheed Shahazadha Vs. K.Naayana Reddy and another 3.
19. Learned counsel, in support of his contention that requirement of deposit of security amount is mandatory in Election Petition and non-compliance of the same would render the Election Petition void, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Nandkishore Bhatta and others 4, judgment of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in T.H.Abdul Azeez Vs. K.G.Balasubramanian5 and judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Anajamma Vs. S.Pushpamma and another 6.
20. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 herein contended that Principal District Judge,Jogulamba-Gadwal District has rightly dismissed the application on the grounds on which the respondent No.1 herein sought for rejection of the Election Petition 1 AIR 2018 SC 3912 2 MANU/AP/0107/2008 3 AIR 2019 Karnataka 42 4 AIR 1973 SC 2464 5 MANU/KE/1458/2011 6 2001(1) ALD 77 (DB) 10 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 by observing that the same can be decided only after full-fledged trial and therefore, the Election Petition cannot be rejected at the threshold. She further contended that Election Petition was filed within the period of limitation and further, the security amount was deposited with the Superintendent of the Court of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District along with the Election Petition and it is also a fact that the Section of the said Court has not raised any objection with regard to non-payment of security amount at the time of numbering the Election Petition, even otherwise, as observed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in the impugned order, it is a curable defect.
20.1. Learned counsel further contended that originally, Election Petition was filed before the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District which has got jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition, more so, in view of reorganisation of revenue Districts in Telangana State by the State Government, hence, the contention of the revision petitioner that Election Petition was filed before a wrong forum i.e., III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District is untenable. She finally 11 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 contended that the revision petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the well-reasoned impugned order of the Principal District Judge,Jogulamba-Gadwal District and hence, this Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
21. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the averments made by both the parties and the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for both the parties.Perused the entire material available on record and also scrupulously gone through the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, which were relied upon by learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
22. As regards the contention of learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner that Election Petition was filed before wrong forum, it is to be seen that as per Rule 4 of the Rules, 2020, Election Tribunal shall be the 'District Judge' having territorial jurisdiction over the municipal area, or if there are more than one such District Judge, the Principal District Judge shall be the Election Tribunal. The said Rule has to be read along with Section 233(3) of Act, 2019, as per which, 'Principal District Judge' is 12 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 designated as 'Election Tribunal' to try the Election Petitions and the proceedings connected therewith.
23. In the instant case, at the relevant time of filing Election Petition before the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, admittedly, Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District existed. There was reorganisation of Districts in Telangana by the State Government on revenue side on 11.10.2016, wherein a new District-Jogulamba-Gadwal District is formed by division of Mahabubnagar District into five segments. However, on judicial side, there was no such reorganisation of Districts, as such, the Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District continued to be the Election Tribunal as postulated under Rule 4(b) of the Rules, 2020.
24. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.61, Law (LA, LA&J-Home-Courts-A2) Department, dated 01.06.2022, whereunder 33 Judicial Districts in the State of Telangana co- terminus with the Revenue Districts were established.
25. In view of the aforesaid GO and also in the teeth of the aforesaid provisions, the contention of respondent No.1 herein that the Court of III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, 13 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 Mahabubnagar District is an independent District Judge at Mahabubnagar District and as such, it has got jurisdiction to try the Election Petitions is incorrect and unsustainable. Thus, originally, the Election Petition was obviously filed before a wrong forum and subsequently, it was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, which is a constituted Election Tribunal to try the Election Petitions and the proceedings connected therewith.
26. In order to compute the time spent by respondent No.1 herein before a wrong forum, it is apt to note down the chronology of dates in the present case as hereunder:-
(i) Elections were held on 22.01.2020
(ii) Results of elections declared on 25.01.2020
(iii) Election Petition No. 05 of 2020 was filed before III
Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District on 20.02.2020
(iv) Election Petition No. 05 of 2020 was returned by III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District vide order dated 30.11.2021 14 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024
(v) Election Petition was re-presented before Principal District Judge, Gadwal District on 10.11.2022 and re- numbered as EOP.No. 05 of 2022
27. Thus, from 20.02.2020 to 10.11.2022, i.e., the date on which the Election Petition was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, respondent No. 1 herein spent a period of 2 years 9 months by pursuing the Election Petition before a wrong forum.
28. Now, it is to be determined as to whether the time spent in wrong forum can be condoned in Election Petitions while computing the period of limitation in filing the Election Petitions.
29. In Suman Devi's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while adjudicating the issue as to limitation in filing of Election Petition vis-à-vis the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, has held that as per Section 176(1) thereof, the Election Petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of declaration of results of election and since the said Act is complete Code for presentation of Election Petition, provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act would clearly stand excluded and further, observed that the Election 15 LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 Petition which fails to comply with the mandated statue is liable to be dismissed.
30. In Shaheed Shahazadha's case (cited supra), the Karnataka High Court, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Devi's case (cited supra), held that since there is no statutory right analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there remains no right for the respondent to seek for condonation of delay spent in wrong forum.
31. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court comes to conclusion that the period spent by pursuing the Election Petitions in wrong forum cannot be condoned.
32. Since the core issues as to the maintainability of the Election Petition and the period spent in pursuing the Election Petition before a wrong forum are held against respondent No. 1, this Court is not inclined to delve into the aspect of deposit of security amount by respondent No.1 at the time of filing Election Petition.
33. In the light of the above totality of facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts as referred supra, this Court holds that the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba- 16
LNA, J CRP.No.481 of 2024 Gadwal District committed illegality and irregularity in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and therefore, the same warrants interference by this Court.
34. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in IA.No.330 of 2022 in EOP.No. 05 of 2022 and consequently, the said I.A stands allowed.
35. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:04.04.2025 Dr