Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 LNA, J 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.

21. 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 designated as 'Election Tribunal' to try the Election Petitions and the proceedings connected therewith.

23. 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.

24. 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, 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.

29. 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.

LNA, J

30. 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.