Telangana High Court
Kata Srinivas Goud vs Gudem Mahipal Reddy on 10 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
I.A.No.2 of 2025
In/and
Election Petition No.16 of 2024
Between:
Gudem Mahipal Reddy
...Petitioner/Respondent No.1
AND
1. Katam Srinivas Goud
...Respondent/Election Petitioner
2. T.Nandeeshwar Goud and others
...Respondents/Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 10.10.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may : Yes/No
be marked to Law Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
SK,J
2 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+I.A.No.2 of 2025 in/and Election Petition No.16 of 2024
%Dated 10.10.2025
# Gudem Mahipal Reddy
...Petitioner/Respondent No.1
AND
$ 1. Katam Srinivas Goud
...Respondent/Election Petitioner
2. T.Nandeeshwar Goud and others
...Respondents/Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner/Respondent No.1: Sri Naveen Kumar
^ Counsel for Respondent No.1/ : Sri A.Raghu Ram
Election Petitioner
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1. 2024 SCC Online SCC 509
2. 2024 SCC Online SC 519
3. 2025 SCC Online TS 351
4. 1987 Supp. SCC 93
5. 2023 SCC Online SC 573
6. (1999) 3 SCC 737
7. (2015) 8 SCC 331
8. (2022) 8 SCC 633
9. (2020) 7 SCC 366
10. 2025 SCC Online SC 1723
SK,J
3 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
I.A.No.2 of 2025
in/and
ELECTION PETITION No. 16 of 2024
ORDER:
1. The petitioner, who is the respondent No.1 in E.P.No.16 of 2024, filed this petition under Rule-11 of Order-VII read with Section 151 of CPC to reject the Election Petition.
2. Heard Sri Naveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner/Respondent No.1 and Sri A.Raghu Ram, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner and perused the record.
The contentions of the Petitioner/Respondent No.1.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 submits that the respondent No.1 filed Election Petition to declare the election of the petitioner from Assembly of No.40-Patancheru Assembly Constitution, State of Telangana which was held on 30.11.2023 as SK,J 4 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 illegal, null and void and to call for the records. The petitioner herein was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Patancheru Assembly Constituency from Bharat Rashtra Samithi party. The Election Petition is entirely misconceived, untenable, borne out of absurd, general and vague allegations without any material facts and cogent evidence and has been filed merely based on an afterthought only to cause inconvenience to the petitioner in lawful exercise of his functions and duties and to subject the petitioner to judicial process, so as to curtail the working efficiency of the petitioner. The Election Petition under Section 100 (1) (d) (i) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short 'R.P Act') contending that the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 has been improperly accepted on the ground that the petitioner/respondent No.1 has allegedly not disclosed certain information. The affidavit filed in support of the Election Petition is bereft of any pleadings as to how the allegations SK,J 5 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 mentioned under (a) to (d) has materially affected the result of the Election Petition. It is settled law that whenever an Election Petition has been filed invoking Section 100 (1) (d)(i) of the R.P Act, it is trite to plead and prove how the same has materially affected the result of the returned candidate.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that in the absence of any pleading demonstrating how the election has been materially affected, merely alleging that the nomination has been improperly accepted as the petitioner/respondent No.1 suppressed some information does not constitute a ground as envisaged under the provisions of the R.P Act. The Respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the alleged non-disclosure of details constitutes a cause of action for the Election Petition, therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.
SK,J 6 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that in the absence of any pleadings how the said non- disclosure of the alleged information is of substantial in nature, entitling rejection of nomination and furthermore impacting the candidature or the result of an Election Petition in the absence of such pleadings, the same cannot constitute a ground under Section 100 (1) (d) (i) of the R.P Act.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that the pleadings with regard to the alleged corrupt practice has to be precise, specific and unambiguous as to which corrupt practice does it constitute under those mentioned under Section 123 of the R.P Act. The Election Petitioner without disclosing the material facts, vaguely alleges that the petitioner has unduly influencing and appealed the voters through corrupt practices.
SK,J 7 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that as per Section 83 (1) (b) of the Act the particulars should be complete in every respect and when it relates to an allegation of corrupt practices, it should be specific. Unless and until the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner comes forward with definite plea of his case that the allegation of corrupt practice is supported by legally acceptable material evidence without an iota doubt as to such allegation, the Election Petition cannot be entertained and will have to be rejected at the threshold. The petitioner has got the support of the majority of the voters who cast their votes and the said majority support obtained by a public election cannot be allowed to be called in question when no cause of action is made out warranting trial.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that SK,J 8 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 it is evident from mere pleadings and the grounds asserted in the Election Petition that the Election Petitioner has failed to make out any grounds under Section 100 of the Act and on this ground alone the Election petition is liable to be rejected. In the absence of any pleadings constituting any cause of action much less forming part of grounds as envisaged under Section 100 of the R.P Act, 1951 and the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/Respondent No.1 would submit that to raise a cause of action for filing of the Election Petition has concocted the said allegations solely relying on certain entries in Dharani Portal, which even otherwise do not confer title or cannot be deemed as title documents and the said properties have been alienated in favour of third parties way back in the year 2014 and 2016 vide registered documents and the said alienations are in the public domain and the SK,J 9 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 Election Petitioner suppressing the above said facts and solely relying on the entries made in the Dharani Portal has filed the Election Petition.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that the allegation of the Election Petitioner that the petitioner has been receiving income from GMR filling Station is denied and the said allegation is without any evidence on record. The petitioner has disclosed all the source of income which includes business income in the affidavit, as such the contention of the Election Petitioner that the petitioner has suppressed the income from operation of the said petrol bunk is devoid of any merit.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that in so far as the inadvertence in respect of disclosure of educational qualification is concerned as was done in the earlier nomination affidavit, it is settled law that SK,J 10 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 every error in the Nomination Form is not a ground for an Election Petition unless such non-disclosure has materially affected the bearing on the result of the election. Even otherwise, it may be noted that the petitioner has rightfully disclosed his educational qualifications in the Nomination Form, as such the said contention is also devoid of any merit.
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that the allegation of the Election Petitioner that the petitioner/respondent No.1 has misrepresented about the loans/dues to the Bank, such allegation baseless and without appreciation of facts at hand. It is pertinent to note that Form 26 of the nomination paper only requires the outstanding loan amount to be submitted, therefore though a loan for Rs.6,41,59,300/ was sanctioned from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited and as on date of filing of nomination and submission of Form No.26 only SK,J 11 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 Rs.6,00,41,778/- was outstanding amount and the same was rightfully disclosed in Form No.26. Therefore, the said allegation is also devoid of any merit.
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that it is not generally permissible to interfere with the Election Process unless the said irregularity or discrepancy is material and has a bearing on the outcome of the election, as such mere assertions and allegations based on assumptions and surmises cannot validly constitute a cause of action warranting the trial of Election Petition even if the allegations in the pleadings are considered. In the instant Election Petition, the respondent No.1/Election petitioner has barely raised any allegations of corrupt practice against the petitioner/respondent No.1 which is insufficient for maintaining the Election Petition and there are no merits in the Election Petition and requested to reject the Election Petition.
SK,J 12 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024
14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the following Judgments:
1. Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs.Aminul Haque Laskar and others 1
2. Karikho Kri Vs. Nune Tayang 2
3. Thaneeru Harish Rao Vs. Gadhagoni Chakradahr Goud and another 3
4. Dhartipaka Madan Lal Agarwal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 4
5. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A.Santhana Kumar & Others 5 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT No.1/ELECTION PETITIONER
15. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner basing on the counter, would submit that application filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 under Order VII, Rule-11 of CPC is frivolous, vexatious and filled with a solitary intention to dealy the fair trial of Election Petition. The 1 2024 SCC Online SCC509 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 519 3 2025 SCC Online TS 351 4 1987 Supp SCC 93 5 2023 SCC Online SC 573 SK,J 13 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 grounds on which the petitioner has invoked under VII, Rule-11 of CPC are vague, misleading and devoid of merit. The Election Petition was filed on 11.01.2024 and the petitioner/respondent No.1 has put forth his appearance on 15.04.2024 and filed his defence even belatedly i.e. on 10.07.2024 without taking any steps to file application under Order-VII, Rule-11. After lapse of more than 17 months from the date of filing the above Election Petition, the present petition is filed seeking rejection of Election Petition. The endeavour of the petitioner is to dealy as long as possible and to make election petition as infructous.
16. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner would further submit that the Election Petition discloses a valid cause of action supported by specific and material pleadings. The Election Petition details multiple grounds under Section 100 (1) (d) (i) and (iv) of the Act, 1951 including improper acceptance of nomination, suppression of SK,J 14 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 assets, misstatement of liabilities, misrepresentation of qualifications and commission of corrupt practices and the said averments give rise to triable issues, which only be adjudicated upon evidence, as such the requirement under Section 83 of the Act are substantially complied with. It is settled principle of law that the pleadings must be read as a whole and not in isolation or with hyper-technical scrutiny. The Election Petition contains a coherent and narrative disclosing how the alleged acts and omissions of the returned candidate materially affected the outcome of the election.
17. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner submits that the scope of Order-VII, Rule-11 is limited. The jurisdiction under Order-VII, Rule-11 is confined to the averments in the plaint i.e. Election Petition. It does not permit an inquiry into the truth or falsity of the allegations. The grounds by the petitioner in the Interlocutory SK,J 15 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 Application pertain to matters of evidence, proof and merit, which cannot be adjudicated under Order-VII, Rule-11. The law of elections, by its very nature is a matter of public importance and democratic integrity. The courts have consistently held that an Election Petition should not be dismissed at the threshold unless it is wholly and demonstrably untriable.
18. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petition would further submit that the Election Petition sufficiently sets out material facts and specific instances of concealment, dates of alienation, property records and misrepresentations and whether these are ultimately proved is a material of trial, not for rejection under application filed under Order-VII, Rule-11. The Election Petition is filed in full compliance with Sections 81, 83 and 100 of the Act, 1951 and have duly set out material facts and legal grounds, particularly under Section 100 (1) (d) (i) and 100 (1) (d) (iv), establishing that the acceptance of the SK,J 16 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 nomination paper was improper and that it materially affected the result of the election.
19. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner would further submit that the contention of the petitioner that the Election Petition discloses no cause of action is baseless and false. The Election Petition also satisfied the requirement of concise pleadings as mandated under Section 83 of the Act. Further, it is also settled law that non- disclosure of assets or liabilities or misstatements in the affidavit under Fomr-26 are grave violations impacting electoral fairness. The Election Petitioner has clearly pleaded all primary and material facts including the nature of suppression and the documentary basis for each claim, and hence the principles enunciated under Order-VII, Rule-11 do not apply as the petitioner disclose triable issues.
20. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner would submit that there is SK,J 17 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 fine distinction between 'material facts' and 'material particulars'. Further, the Election Petitioner has specifically pleaded how the improper acceptance of nomination, despite statutory violations, materially affected the election results. Suppressing of ownership and income source from entities like GMR Filling Station and misrepresentation made by the petitioner/respondent No.1 about his educational qualifications goes to the root of fair representation before voters. Further, whether the election has been materially affected or not due to improper acceptance of nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 is triable issue and cannot be decided in an application under Order-VII, Rule-11 of CPC.
21. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 would further submit that the Election Petition clearly mentions how the petitioner/respondent No.1 misused his position, engaged in undue influence and used financial muscle to alter the electoral balance. The SK,J 18 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 petitioner has disrupted the electoral process by gifting, unduly influencing and appealing the voters through corrupt practices. On 29.10.2023 at 6.00 p.m at GMR function Hall at Patancheru, the petitioner/respondent No.1 promised to disburse one crore rupees to each to the 28 community groups and also issued backdated Government land allotment letters each valued at Rs.8 Crores and requested them to vote for him and thereby interfered with free exercise of electoral right. The Election Petition clearly narrates the means and methods used for undue influence, including references to caste-based appeals and financial inducements, which fall within Section 123 (2) and 123 (4) of the Act.
22. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner would further submit that the assertion of the petitioner that the properties were alienated is a matter for evidence. The existence of the property entries on the Dharani Portal as on the date SK,J 19 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 of nomination is the basis for the cause of action. If alienated, the burden lies on the petitioner to prove it. The denial of the petitioner regarding ownership in the GMR filling Station is self-serving. The suppression of income from such business is directly violative of electoral disclosure obligations. The discrepancy in educational qualifications of the petitioner are not trivial and they reflect on the integrity and transparency of the candidate and must be explained convincingly. Further, the discrepancy in loan amounts. The difference of over Rs.40 Lakhs is substantial and the explanation offered by the petitioner is an afterthought and not supported by bank or Form No.26 disclosures.
23. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner would further submit that a bare reading of Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC makes it abundantly clear that the plaint can be rejected only if it falls within one of the specified grounds. The SK,J 20 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 contentions raised by the petitioner not satisfy any of the grounds. All the grounds urged pertain to disputed and triable questions of fact, which necessarily require adjudication upon evidence and cannot be summarily decided in an application under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC and the petition is liable to be dismissed and requested to dismiss the petition.
24. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner in support of his contentions relied on the following Judgments:
1. V.S.Achuthannandan Vs. P.J.Francis and another 6
2. P.Guruva Raj Reddy Vs. P.Neeradha Reddy and others 7 CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS
25. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent No.1 herein filed Election Petition questioning the election of the petitioner/respondent No.1, mainly on the following grounds: 6
(1999) 3 SCC 737 7 (2015) 8 SCC 331 SK,J 21 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024
i) Non-Disclosure of Assets in the Nomination Paper in Form No.26.
ii) Non-Disclosure of Income in the Nomination Paper in Form No.26.
iii) Misrepresentation about the Educational Qualifications
iv) Misrepresentation about Loans and Dues to the Banks
v) Unlawful interference with the Electoral Process through the Commission of corrupt practices
26. This Court perused the records with regard to the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 filed along with the Election Petition. A perusal of the pleadings of the Election Petition, nowhere it is stated that the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner made any objection before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 by the Returning Officer. The respondent No.1/Election petitioner, without filing any objection for acceptance of nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1, merely stating that the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1 was SK,J 22 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. Moreover, the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not made any complaint to the election authorities with regard to improper acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No.1.
27. With regard to the allegation of non-disclosure of the assets by the petitioner/respondent No.1, the contention of the Election Petitioner is that the petitioner/respondent No.1 has not disclosed of all immovable assets in Form No.26 and stated that the petitioner/respondent No.1 is having lands to an extent of Ac.3.1100 Guntas in Sy.No.159/A, an extent of Ac.0.1300 in Sy.No.166/A, an extent of 1.0700 Guntas in Sy.No.167/a, an extent of Ac.1.0100 guntas in Sy.No.168/a and an extent of Ac.1.0200 guntas in Sy.No.168/aa, recorded in Khata No.578, situated at Patancheru Village an Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.
28. This Court perused the documents filed by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner at Page Nos.39 to SK,J 23 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 43 of the Election Petition i.e. copies of the Dharani Portal in respect of Survey Nos.159/A, 166/A and 167/A, without any attestation from the competent authorities to show that the petitioner/respondent No.1 is having agricultural lands in the said survey numbers situated at Patandhcueru Village of Sanga Reddy District as on the date of filing of nomination. The Adangal Pahanies for the years 2001-2002 to 2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2015-2016 and 2019-2020 are filed at Page Nos.45 to 180 of the Election Petition. The contention of the petitioner/respondent No.1 is that he has already sold or alienated the said properties during the years 2014 and 2016 through registered document Nos.5072/2014, dated 10.04.2014, 5073/2014, dated 10.04.2014, 25402/2016, dated 21.09.2016 and 25403 of 2016 dated 21.09.2016 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Patancheru as on the date of filing of nomination. But the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not filed any documents to show that the properties mentioned by him are in SK,J 24 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 the name of the petitioner/respondent No.1 as on the date of nomination except online copy of Dharani Portal. In view of the above, merely basing on the entries in Dharanai Portal this Court cannot accept the contention of the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner and moreover, the entries in Dharani Portal cannot create any title of the properties. In view of these circumstances, basing on the said documents, this Court cannot proceed further in the Election Petition as the petitioner/respondent No.1 not disclosed all the immovable properties.
29. The contention of the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is that, the petitioner/respondent No.1 is receiving income from the petrol Bunk, namely GMR Filling Station situated in the lands owned by the petitioner/respondent No.1 in Sy.No.50/AA of Patancheru and the petitioner/respondent No.1 has not disclosed the said income in the nomination Form.
SK,J 25 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024
30. In this regard, a perusal of the statement filed by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner at page No.183 of the Election Petition would show that they were downloaded from internet in UDAYAM-TS-25- 0005604 website and the said document pertains to M/s.GVR Enterprises, a manufacturing unit. In the said statement, it is mentioned that GMR Filling Station is situated in Sy.No.50/AA, Beside GMR Gardens at Patancheru. But, there is no mention in the said statement that the petitioner/respondent No.1 is the owner of the GMR filling station. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner failed to file any documents to show that the petitioner/respondent No.1 is the owner of the said GMR filling station and basing on the documents filed by the Election Petitioner this Court cannot proceed further as the same is vague allegation.
31. The contention of the Election petitioner is that the petitioner/respondent No.1 misrepresented about SK,J 26 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 his educational qualifications in the Nomination Form submitted in the year 2023, as in the Nomination Form submitted by the petitioner/Respondent No.1 in the year, 2014 he declared that he completed X Class by mentioning as 'SSC Board from Zilla Praja Parishad High School in the relevant educational qualifications Column, whereas in the Form No.26 submitted by the petitioner in the year 2023 he mentioned as IX-Class from ZPHS (Boys) School, Patancheru-1977.
32. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner has not filed any document with regard to actual educational qualifications of the petitioner/respondent No.1. Without there being any document, this Court cannot declare that petitioner/respondent No.1 has misrepresented about his educational qualifications. Further, there is no much difference between the educational qualifications of Class-IX and Class-X, as mentioned earlier and such declaration of the petitioner/respondent No.1 regarding educational SK,J 27 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 qualifications does not materially affect the election of the petitioner/respondent No.1.
33. The other ground raised by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is that the petitioner/respondent No.1 has made misrepresentation in Form No.26 about his loans/dues to Bank.
[
34. The contention of the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is that the petitioner/respondent No.1 has obtained a loan of Rs.6,41,59,300/- from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation through Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 04.05.2018, but in the nomination form the petitioner disclosed lesser amount of Rs.6,00,41,778/-. But the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner failed to file any document to show that the petitioner is having dues to Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited as on the date of filing of nomination form i.e. 10.11.2023. Even as per the contention of the respondent No.1/Election SK,J 28 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 Petitioner, the respondent No.1 has obtained loan of Rs.6,41,59,300/- on 04.05.2018 and the nomination was filed in the year, 2023. As the petitioner/respondent No.1 has been paying the installments from 2018 to 2023, the amount would be reduced. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner relied on the date of obtaining loan by the petitioner/respondent No.1, but not as on the date of declaration, which was made after five years from the date of obtaining loan amount. In view of the same, the ground raised by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner cannot be acceptable and the same is very vague.
35. Another ground raised by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is that the petitioner/respondent No.1 has disrupted the electoral process by gifting, unduly influencing and appealing the voters through corrupt practice on 29.10.2023 at 6.00 p.m at GMR Function Hall at Patancheru and SK,J 29 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 promised to disburse one Crore Rupees to each of the 28 community groups, totaling to Rs.28 Crores and also issued backdated land allotment letters, each valued at Rs.8 Crores and requested to vote for him and thereby interfered with the electoral process by corrupt practices.
36. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner basing on the material papers filed along with the Election Petition at Page Nos.185 to 213 and communication between one V.Ravi Krishna, Advocate and the election authorities. The said Ravi Krishna made e-mail complaint on 13.11.2023 to the Chief Electoral Officer about the promises made by the petitioner/Respondent No.1, without mentioning date, time and venue. In response to the e-mail complaint dated 13.11.2023, the Chief Electoral Officer, vide letter dated 17.11.2023 has directed the District Collector, Sanga Reddy to take necessary action in the matter. In response thereto the letter, the District SK,J 30 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 Collector, after issuing notice to the petitioner/respondent No.1 submitted his report stating that no meeting was conducted on 02.11.2023 as alleged by the complaint and there is no concrete evidence support of the allegation of the complainant as such the same is not liable for any consideration and the said letter was communicated to the Chief Electoral Officer on 23.11.2023. Thereafter also, the said V.Ravikrishna, Advocate sent another e-mail to the Chief Electoral Officer on 24.11.2023. In the said e-mail also, there is no mention about the date, time and venue of the meeting, where the petitioner/respondent No.1 promised to have disburse Rupees 28 Crores i.e. 1 Crore to each community group.
37. The Elections were held on 30.11.2023, and results were declared on 05.12.2023. After declaration of the election results, the said V.Ravikrishna, made another complaint to the Chief Electoral Officer, on SK,J 31 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 06.12.2023, stating that the petitioner/Respondent No.1 has violated model code of Conduct by bribing community groups in a meeting to give one Crore Rupees to each community group by mentioning date as 29.10.2023, time as 6.00 pm and Venue as GMR Function Hall at Patancheru and the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is relying on the same.
38. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner submitted a pen drive along with the Election Petition at Page No.360 in support of his contention that the petitoner/respondent No.1 conducted a meeting on 29.10.2023 at G.M.R. Function Hall, Patancheru. The said video clipping has been viewed by this Court. In the said video clipping, the petitioner/respondent No.1 addressed a meeting with Perika Sangam community people, but there is no date, time or place of such meeting in the banner, except mentioning as "Perika Sangam Atmeeya Sabha". In the said meeting, the petitioner/respondent No.1 gave speech about SK,J 32 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 allotment of land for construction of community halls and promised to pay amounts, but there was no request to voters to vote him in the elections. The contention of the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner that the petitioner/respondent No.1 involved in corrupt practices cannot be acceptable merely basing on the video clipping without any date, time and venue submitted by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner. Moreover, the allotment letters filed by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner from page Nos.215 to 301 were issued by the Ameenpoor Municipality on 07.10.2023, for construction of 29 Community Halls. The Election Code came with effect from 09.10.2023 as per the Notification issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana State. Along with the Election Petition no documents are filed to show that any proceedings were issued after commencement of Election Code at the instance of petitioner/respondent No.1. In view of the same, the contention of the Election Petitioner that the petitioner/respondent No.1 SK,J 33 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 unlawfully interfered with the Election Process through corrupt practices is very vague.
39. The respondent No.1/Election Petitioner filed counter in this Interlocutory Application stating that the after 17 months of filing the Election Petition, the application filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 under Order-VII, Rule-11 of CPC, at the stage of framing issues, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
40. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is not sustainable, as there is no bar for entertaining the applications under order-VII, Rule-11 of CPC at any stage as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Frost International Limited Vs. Milan Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., 8 where in it was held that the applications under Order-VII, Rule-11 of CPC are maintainable at any stage of proceedings. The 8 (2022) 8 SCC 633 SK,J 34 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 relevant portion of the said Judgment is extracted as under:
"37. It was further held that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Placing reliance on Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial.
(Emphasis added)
41. In another Judgment, while dealing with the maintainability of application under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanus Ali (Gajra) Dead, through LRs and others,9, it was held that powers under Order-7, Rule-11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is extracted as under:
"23.14. The power under Order-7, Rule-11 CPC may be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit, either before 9 (2020) 7 SCC 366 SK,J 35 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the Judgment of Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain case"
(Emphasis added) In view of the above Judgments, the contention of the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner that the instant application under Order-VII, Rule-11 is not maintainable, cannot be acceptable.
42. The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for petitioner/respondent No.1 squarely apply to the facts of the Instant Interlocutory Application and the same are extracted as under:
In Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs.Animul Haque Laskar and others (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"21. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that a charge of "Corrupt practice" is easy to level but difficult to prove because it is in the nature of criminal charge and has got to be proved beyond doubt. The standard of proof required for establishing a charge of "Corrupt practice" is the same as is applicable to a criminal charge. Therefore, Section 83(1)(b) mandates that when the allegation of "Corrupt practice"
SK,J 36 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 is made, the Election Petition shall set forth full particulars of the corrupt practice that the Election Petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. The pleadings with regard to the allegation of corrupt practice have to be precise, specific and unambiguous whether it is bribery or undue influence or other corrupt practices as stated in Section 123 of the Act. If it is corrupt practice in the nature of undue influence, the pleadings must state the full particulars with regard to the direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere by the candidate, with the free exercise of any electoral right as stated in Section 123(2) of the Act. We are afraid, Mr. Gupta has failed to point out from the pleadings of the Election petition as to how the appellant had interfered or attempted to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right so as to constitute "undue influence"
under Section 123(2) of the Act.
22. So far as the ground contained in clause (d) of Section 100(1) of the Act, with regard to improper acceptance of the nomination of the Appellant is concerned, there is not a single averment made in the Election Petition as to how the result of the election, in so far as the appellant was concerned, was materially affected by improper acceptance of his nomination, so as to constitute a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act.
Though it is true that the Election Petitioner is not required to state as to how corrupt practice had materially affected the result of the election, nonetheless it is mandatory to state when the clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) is invoked as to how the result of election was materially affected by improper acceptance of the nomination form of the Appellant".
In Karikho Kri Vs. Nune Tayuang (supra 2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
40. Having considered the issue, we are of the firm view that every defect in the nomination cannot straightaway be termed to be of such character as to render its acceptance improper and each case would have to turn on its own individual facts, insofar as that aspect is concerned. The case law on the subject also manifests that this Court has always drawn a distinction between non-disclosure of substantial issues as opposed to insubstantial issues, which may not impact one's candidature or the result of an election.
The very fact that Section 36(4) of the Act of 1951 speaks of the Returning Officer not rejecting a nomination unless he is of the opinion that the defect is of a substantial nature demonstrates that this distinction must always be kept in mind and there is no absolute mandate that every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature, SK,J 37 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 thereby materially affecting the result of the election or amounting to 'undue influence' so as to qualify as a corrupt practice.
41. The decision of this Court in Kisan Shankar Kathore (supra), also demonstrates this principle, as this Court undertook examination of several individual defects in the nomination of the returned candidate and found that some of them were actually insubstantial in character. This Court noted that two facets required consideration - Whether there is substantial compliance in disclosing requisite information in the affidavits filed along with the nomination and whether non-disclosure of information on identified aspects materially affected the result of the election.
This Court observed, on facts, that non-disclosure of the electricity dues in that case was not a serious lapse, despite the fact that there were dues outstanding, as there was a bonafide dispute about the same. Similar was the observation in relation to non-disclosure of municipal dues, where there was a genuine dispute as to re-valuation and re- assessment for the purpose of tax assessment. Earlier, in Sambhu Prasad Sharma vs. Charandas Mahant19, this Court observed that the form of the nomination paper is not considered sacrosanct and what is to be seen is whether there is substantial compliance with the requirement as to form and every departure from the prescribed format cannot, therefore, be made a ground for the rejection of the nomination paper.
In Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A.Santha Kumar (supra 5), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under:
"28. The legal position enunciated in afore-stated cases may be summed up as under:-
i. Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951 mandates that an Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. If material facts are not stated in an Election petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone, as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code.
ii. The material facts must be such facts as would afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and would constitute the cause of action, that is every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to prove, if traversed in order to support his right to the judgment of court. Omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint would become bad.
iii. Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a complete cause of action. Material facts would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary.
SK,J 38 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 iv. In order to get an election declared as void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election petitioner SK, J 19 I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/and E.P.No.15 of 2024 must aver that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or any rules or orders made under the Act, the result of the election, in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, was materially affected.
v. The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose.
vi. An Election petition can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action, or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, in exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC read with the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act.
xxxx
33. A elaborately discussed earlier, Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act mandates that an Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies, and which facts constitute a cause of action. Such facts would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of negative fact.
Omission of a singular fact would lead to incomplete cause of action. So far as the present petition is concerned, there is no averment made as to how there was non- compliance with provisions of the Constitution or of RP Act or of the Rules or Order made thereunder and as to how such non-compliance had materially affected the result of the election, so as to attract the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, for declaring the election to be void. The omission to state such vital and basic facts has rendered the petition liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 83(i)(a) of the RP Act, 1951".
43. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner in V.Achuthanandan Vs. P.J.Francis and another (supra 6) not apply to the facts of the case, as the facts in the said case pertaining to the recounting of votes and facts in the instant case is with regard to Non-disclosure of assets, Non-disclosure of income, misrepresentation about the educational qualifications and SK,J 39 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 misrepresentation about loans and dues to the Banks by the petitioner/respondent No.1.
44. Another Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is in P.V.Guru Raj Reddy Vs. P.neeradha Reddy (supra 7), and this Court while disposing of the instant interlocutory application has taken into averments made in the Election Petition and the documents filed by the Election Petitioner by following the said Judgment.
45. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ajmera Shyam Vs. Kova Laxmi and others 10, with regard to non-disclosure of assets and misrepresentation of educational qualification, held as follows:
"9.10.6 Under the circumstances, once the people have spoken their mind by casting their votes through the ballot box and reposed their confidence in the elected candidate, whenever the issue of invalidating the people's mandate is raised before the court, the court must be very careful and circumspect.
A fine balance must be struck between holding free and fair election-- which involves the fundamental right of voters to have information about the candidates-- and maintaining the sanctity of the mandate of the voters upon the declaration of the 10 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1723 SK,J 40 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 result. After all, election result is the embodiment of the will of the people expressed through the exercise of the constitutional right of the people to vote.
The court, therefore, must keep in mind that declaring an election void solely for non-disclosure of assets, if it lacks substantiality, could undermine the validity of the popular mandate. To nullify the choice of the people on a minor technicality and insignificant non-disclosure of assets by the elected candidate, would have serious repercussions on the democratic process.
Thus, while the court plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law, utmost care must be taken to ensure that election results are not invalidated based on subjective interpretation and minor or technical irregularities that do not substantially impinge on the law, since unwarranted interference with the electoral process and overturning election results can erode public trust in democratic institutions.
9.10.7 Under such circumstances, nullifying the election result and overturning the people's verdict through cold, clinical legal analysis and tools should be avoided, unless the electoral process has been vitiated by gross irregularities that undermine electoral integrity. Courtroom interventions should only happen when there are clear and blatant violations of the law that threaten fairness, legality, and constitutional principles.
9.10.8 Minor procedural errors or purely technical objections of inconsequential nature thus, should not be allowed to override the mandate of the electorate. Courts must be careful not to become tools that undermine the popular mandate in the name of technical perfection. The will of the people, expressed through the election result, should be respected, unless it has been corrupted by fraudulent practices, in which case, the court should intervene without hesitation. A judicial victory based on technicalities rather than the electoral victory won in the SK,J 41 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 electoral battlefield should be avoided, unless the mandate and the integrity of the electoral process are compromised by fraud or corrupt practices.
Xxxx xxxx 11.1 Judicial intervention in election disputes concerning disclosure of information, as discussed above, was prompted by the quest for sanitizing the electoral process by eliminating polluting elements by making candidates' criminal antecedents public. Aiming to prevent criminals from participating in elections to maintain purity of the electoral process -- essential for the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy -- the court was compelled to exercise its extraordinary power to issue specific directions. Consequently, not only disclosure of criminal antecedents, but also related obligations to disclose assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications of election candidates became mandatory. The knowledge of the criminal antecedents, assets and educational qualifications of the candidates by voters certainly invigorates the electoral process, which is ensured by obligatory disclosure by the candidate. However, the Court has made a subtle distinction between non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and that of assets and educational qualifications. While disclosure of criminal antecedents in the electoral process was the most critical element to maintain the purity of the electoral process which has to be scrupulously adhered to, disclosure of assets and educational qualifications were considered as attending supplementary requirements to strengthen the electoral process, of which there will be certain scope for consideration as to whether it is of substantial or inconsequential nature.
In the light of the above, this disclosure requirement as far as assets and educational qualification is concerned, should not be unreasonably stretched to invalidate an otherwise validly SK,J 42 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 declared election over minor technical non-compliances that are not of substantial character, and should not be the basis for nullification of the people's mandate".
(Emphasis added)
46. The above Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. Mere allegation that the petitioner/respondent No.1 not disclosed his movable and immovable properties, difference in mentioning his educational qualifications without any substantive documents this Court cannot proceed further in the Election Petition as the same not constitute the cause of action for filing Election Petition and the same has to be rejected.
47. The Election Petition and the documents filed along with the Election Petition are bald and vague allegations without stating the material facts in support thereof as required under Section 83 (i) (a) and 100 of the Act, 1951 and there is no triable issue with regard to the alleged malpractices basing on the averments and documents filed by the Election SK,J 43 I.A.No.2 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2024 Petitioner in the instant case. In view of the same, the petition filed for rejection of Election Petition is maintainable.
48. In view of the above findings, the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner failed to set out grounds as contemplated under Section 100 and the requirements of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, 1951, the instant Interlocutory Petition filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 is liable to be allowed and the Election Petition filed by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is liable to be rejected under Rule-11 of Order-VII of CPC.
49. Accordingly, the I.A.No.2 of 2025 in Election Petition No.16 of 2024 is allowed. Consequently, the Election Petition No.16 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is hereby rejected. No order as to costs.
______________________ JUSTICE K. SARATH Date:10.10.2025 LR copy to be marked Issue CC by today B/o trr