Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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 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.

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.

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 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.