The High Court · 2025

Petition urrderr C)rder Vll Rule 11 of C.P.C. R/w. Sec. 15. ,rf C.p.C. and Section 86 of Rerprr:s;entation of People Act, 1g5'l praying hat in the circumstances stirt€,d r''r the affidavit filed in support of the petition, flre High court may be pleased to re.tect the plaint in E.P. No. 1512024 as ther pleaJir_-gs in the Present Election petition are not specific and precise and the allegations contained in the Election petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and Section g3 of the Act as such the election petition is liable to be relected under Order Vll, Rute .1 1 of CpC, with exemplary costs and take approp riate penal action against the petitioner in Ep for his fraudulent and mischievous acts with false pleadings made before this Hon,ble court in the above Election petiti on for getting adverse orders against Petitioner herein in the interest of justice Election Petition No.15of 2024 ln the matter of Election of Member of Legislative Assembly No. 33, Siddipet Assembly Constitutency, Siddipet Diskict Between: ff iTg:fl f{,f ffi ii',hHffi:ftfi rs",,ffi :fl ri#itJfd:a[y]# AND '1. Thanneeru Harish Rao. yu",.",<i""tili,i:Ai;""di::,r11f.?t?t:bfj.,Lilft ,,?jli[3id ...PETITIONER j.%%1?33',r, 'Bi{:3ffi :H[:33i;^l'fi ,T?,[3i$ja]i".'-,:i,;,#3J;xf ;?,.,";By:1".. 'B:ftl1i-z:T6s1ffi,,![?"ps5fi ::3ft #.1..x1"#1,i3t",i,ri;?3id3i;:iBri,i., 4. Adulla Narasimha Reddr iJ],t:n[",,.:l,fl :"r,,J5,?iflrrdtn:fl #R:,0:?,,f,,Tfu 3f 3,00,0", Biiil[F,ft 'EilirFj{B\i^fJfi ,M3il13i;fl fl ifl ,i,',"i',1l,,,E3i.t"?T,il:flx?,llloo,o* f) 7 E;#*.,fl#tvst8Lii';I.?iii/sibis;:?',""ti:pzt1"o,."o". Vatarikari Nagarani, Wo. V nHffi lt,5l",dS:1'-',"+#:{ftr[X:*:tlffi f g?...?,i:$ j*yearsocc --., /. ./ ,/ 'r/ t o-1-ia7ri, niinnasarlsiddipet r:wn Sid li)et District

8. Ekkaldevi [.'n;arn S/o. EkkaldeviRajaiah, Aged.about 40 years Ccc - " E;;;;;;; iv,i r '.to 9. Ati Anjanevulr. ti, :. Balaraju, Aged about 37.years' Occ Bt'srne sr; R/o - o r'lo 6-OO. P rra'nakula Viliage,"Nangunuru Niandal' Siddipe t Dir ttict' l0.Gummadi llrrshllerm, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 36 vears Occ lrsiness' '" R/" D-No i .a'ieooatiisat"JJv p;V'v'ttage Siddipet Rural [Vardal' SiddiPet Drst'icl . ' ar.iir"J. ll r L, \o 2-J6lC. Bussapur Villag;, Siddipet IVlarrdal S;iddipet ll.GuvvalaS,rnosrKumar,S/o.G.YellaiahAgedabout3l.yr:arsOcc,' District. SiddiPet D strict '12. Dharmairp,:te F"atap Reddy, S/o Bal Reddy Ag-ed about 4t) ye.i,r:;' Occ '- 6;;i;;;!:rir 16r,5 rt-oolt. wtetpattvVilla(,e, ehinna (odtrru r\lendal' l3.Pashikanti Slrankar, S/o. P Pochaiah, Aged about 64.years, Oc: Business' - nt. o.No.lz-5-lg, Ganesh Nagar, SiddipetTown and Mandal, iiddipet District.

14.Pilli Saikurna' S/,r Pilli Lakshmi Narayana, Aged-about 26 year;'.Occ 'Business.R/:.t)No.5-2l.KammalapalliVillage,ChinnaKotlu'uNlanoal' , Siddipet Drst 'ict

15.Paisa Rantallrisrtta, S/o. P. Lakshman, Aged about 53 year s-' Ccr; B^usiness' R/o. D'No,1C-4-]()/1, Nasarpura Street, Siddipet Town and l\ilanlirl, Slodlpet District. l6.Pothuganti Narasimha Reddy' S/o Malla Reddy, Aged abort 72 1 - 'B;;i;Ji. C/r t) No '1-68, Ensanpalle Village, Siddipet Mandal, S District. ears, Occ iddipet

17.Barre Mallaiah, S/o. Bhumaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ Bus nllss, R/o' D f.lo 3-ZS tr,land apalli Village, Siddipet Mandal, Siddipet Distric l' 18.Chada Raianikar S/o. Chada Ashok Reddy, Aged about 35 years ' Occ. ' gr"n""., R/o I).No. 19-63/1, Kushal nagir' Siddipet Towr anc l/landal' Siddipet Distlrl lg.Varikolu Srinivas. S/o. Sathaiah' Aged about 35 years, Occ Bu ;ittess' R/o' - O.floS-AZ N4rttirp,alli Village, Siddifiet Mandal, Siddipet Dislric't

20. Peddasaig;ari Slril:anth, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged about.26 yea1s, 0199 ,ll!:il"?:,-, R/o. D.No 5 11. llhammampalli Village, KondapakuMandal srd lrpet urstrrct. 2 1. The Returnirrg officer. 33-Siddipet Assembly constituency, Sidr tipet District, Telangan:t S tat,: ( Resoondent 1,1o.21 is struck off from the array of Respondents as per bouri order Dt3OlO8t2O24 vide lA No.3/24 in EP No'1512024', Election F'etitir:r Under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 82, 83 84, 100 (1) (B)' 101 & .123 of the Reprosentirtion of People Act, '1951 R/w. Rules to Rsgul rte the Trial of Election Petitions Jnrkrr the Representation of People Acl, 1951 ir;sued by the High Court of Te la,rga na praying that the High Court may be pleaslc to ...Rl,iSiPONDENTS iff"gri rr;i";rJ ;; offrce Siddiper of No 33_siddioet As-sembty i"^.il;;;;, ,siJoip"t Tetangana on 03.12.2023 "" A) Declare the electton of the Respondent No. 1 as elected from Assemblv Disrrict, stare oi ^. '' ,:?,ffiJ L1:Ji?:T:l','-i'- Ca";;;;;n"'?,.#',1 ,, r 023 to 4122023 . rngrneering Coilege, ponnata virrage anj ib-d C) To call for tire records of voter register and voter slips dated 30.11.2023 ^. retating to 33-siddipet Rssemory do1ili,,i,"i"r",', D) To direct the respondent.lt: _ri il;;;;;;" il" account record and cc or MCC, NCC, vsr, FSri;r#";J'p'rli"rrr,, orthe counting E) To direct the Election C.ommission to conduct fresh elections No. 33- _ Siddipet Assembty Constituency, Sioi,p", iii.,r:l,l,stutu of Tetangana l-) to award costs of the election petition."-' 5;""1"3" loyn3et for the petitioner in I.A.No. 4 ot 2O24 and Respondent No. .t in Etection p"tiii."-I Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in ll. N.o. 4 ot 2024 and petitioner in trrection petition : The Court made the following ORDER: Sri J. Ramchander Rao, Senior counsel appearino for Sri R. Chandra Sheiar Reddy Sri Golla Seshadri T]IIE) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH I.A.No.4 of 2o24 1n and E.P.No.15 of 2024 ORDER Thr: petitioner, rn ho is the respondent I\ o' l in E.P.No. l: f 2024, filed this petition under Rrl':-11 of Order VII ''c'ad with Section 151 of CP(l tr> rtj'361 11-t' Election Pr: :ition

2. Flerrcl Sri J.Ramchander Rao, learnei Serior Oounsel appealing 1or the petitioner/ respondent No.1 e nrl Sri Golia Sesharlrl . Ici,rrned counsei for the respondent No. 1.'lDlection Petitio re'r. The contelrttions of the Petitioner/Resp ondent .Yrr. 1

3. -t, iL,.ned Senior Counsel for the petitic'ner l;ubmits that the lespondent No.1 filed Election Petitic'n t I declare the r:lc'ct.ic n of the petitioner from Asse rbly of No.33 Sldiir;et Assembiy Constituency, Siddipr:t l)istrict, void ar-r,l -. call for the records. He strbmits t.rat the petitionr'r herein was elected as Membe'r of L:1$slative Assembll- f :om siddipet Assembly Constitu':r-lcl' for r;even_ - . ,/ 2 SK,J I A.No.4 of 2024 in/and Ep No.j s of;o2q times and served as Minister in several portfolios. The nomination of the petitioner was thoroughly checked, scrutinized by the Officer and upon due verification, his nomination was accepted. The elections were conducted in a free ald fair malner and the petitioner won the election with the majority of g3,025 votes and the respondent No. 1/Election Petitoiner got tota-l votes of 16,610 and the election petition is filed with a malafide intention to upset the election results based on mere bald allegations that the information disclosed in Form 26 of the nomination by the petitioner was inaccurate. He submits that none of allegations made in the election petition are supported by either primary documents or reiiable source of information and as per Section 83(1)(b) of Representation of people Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act 1951), the allegation of corrupt practice has to be supported by all the documents and material facts with date and time.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has given all the detailed .. information ald particulars with regard to cnminal cases pending against'him and also the cases in which he was '), ,n,, El' N' 1; of2024 has mentioned al1 t he d etails LA.No.a of 202a i! / ':.ttd punisherJ . l- -r,: Petitioner pertainirlg t,) the assets i.e, movable artcl in:n Lovable properties in his eiection affidavit and the resporlder rl No' 1 has macle bakl allegations without any primiuJ' 'loctttnents .or relialtlt: :i(r urce of information. He sub mit:; tl a't the allegatiot-ts; ir-r the election petition are not marerii J facts but are fa.ctr; based speculation and do not disclc se any triable iss.re ;Lnd the election petition can br: initialeC and entertaitled orL11' when there is proper groun<l of con tt:ntion which cat.- i,re considered.

5. Learnr:l Senior Counsel for the pet:tiorier firrther submits rhat as per Section 77 of the Act ' 191; ', the petition,:r has maintained separate account ibr tht: :lection expenditure, i.,nd the same was submitted to tht: District Election t )J:f cer under Section 78 ol the Act, 191 I . He submits thLirt the respondent No. 1 without fili r13 any primary rlocr;ments or reliable source of informz t on to support his lllegation has made bald and vague allt gations with re;1a rcl 1 o the expenditure and as such, the :lection petition is l.Lttl>le to be rejected. .1 s7(,J IA.No.4 of 2024 in/and Ep No jS of2024

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the election petition lacks concise statement of materia-l facts as contemplated under Section g3(a) of the Act, 1951 arrd lacks full particulars of the aleged corrupt practice as contemplated under Section g3(b) of the Act, 195 I . He further submits that none of the allegations with regard to suppression of criminal cases pending against the petitioner and suppression of properties would fall within the definition of corrupt practice of undue influence as envisaged under Section 123(21 of the Act, 1951 and neither of the statements made in the various paragraphs of the election petition to be a concise statement of material facts nor material particulars to give rise to a cause of action with triable issues on falsity of nomination papers, improper acceptance of nomination paper and commission of corrupt practice. 7 . The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No. 1/Eiection Petitioner has made allegation that the petitioner has caJied his associates at 4.05 pM on 3O.11.2023 and informed them to increase the percentage of polling i.e. 45o/o and instructed them to increase the percentage and -- 5 SK,J LA Na.4 of 202 1 rtJ o tLl .1P Nt'.15 oI2A24 further iLlleged that, on instruction of the petitior rt:r' his associzttt:s u.Lterfered in the polling process arid i rr:reased polling perc:r ntage up to 85% within one h'lur anc :hereby succeede rcl in the election by malpractlce 1 'L e said allegatio -ts; i re vague, baseless and lack of n at e i aI facts and the srr; c1 r'ague averments made in the E1e<:ti'lt Petition cannot- ter t aken into account. Further the rer ;;londent No. I trls o ftilled to state the source of infor-rrLa -iln and authent.rcity of the evidence as required un'1er the Act, 1951, as s.tLch the same cannot be admissible as evidence to conllLct l rral in the Election Petition.

8. 'lhe learned Senior Counsel for the petitione: would further s.lbmit that the Respondent No 1/lllection Petitiont:r has also made ailegatlon stating thz t in the electicn l):ocess between 4.00 p.m an<l 5 O0 P M no originrrl i,c t:rs have participated in the Booth IYos 167, t70, 171 114, llg, 145, 113, 107, 130, 129, 13\t,84,87, 69, 91,101, i06, 116, 120, r2r, 122, t23, lit4' -i>.5, 126, 127, l4O. 156, 159, 166, 212 and 266 anrl tlere were malprac ti:: s in the election process The said a L:gations are b:rlrl a n c1 vague without stating the rnat':rr a facts in \ support tlr e reof as required and to be stated u nrli r Section .SK,./ IA No 4 of2024 tll/an.t Ep No.t5 oI2024 83 (1) (a) of the Act and the said Section mandates Election Petition shall contain concise statement of all material facts on which the petitioner relies. The respondent No.1 failed to state material facts in the election petition as such the same is liable to be dismissed 9, The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the case would be covered by clause (a) of Rule-11 of Order-VII of Code of Civil procedure and the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed right at the threshold as the respondent No. 1 failed to state singie material fact which lead to cause of action for fiiing election petition and as such the election petition is summarily dismissed on omission of single materiai facts leading to an incomplete cause of action and requested to reject the Election Petition as the pleadings are not specific and precise and the allegations do not set out grounds as contemplated under Section 100 of the Act, 1951.

10. Learned Senior Counsel petitioner/Respondent No.1 in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the following Judgments: \ S-K,J LA.No.4 af 2Oz 1 n/utiEFNo'15of2A24 7. Kaniin.ozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumarl 7 2, Hari. Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi2

3. Kari.m uddin Barbhuiga Vs. Aminus Haque i'ask,trs The r:ont,:ntions of the respondent Petitioner. Election -NeJl 1 1 . Leilrr e d Counsel for the respondent No. l, Illection Petrtio rer. based on the counter submits t hat the respondt:r'rt No.1 is one of the conteste<l ctrnd dates of 33-siddipr: - Assembly Constituency in the 64ene,r:Ll e.ections held on 3t). .l 2023 and the petitioner war; also r ontested on behalf ,rl Bharatha Rasthra Samithi Part\ zLr: d in the election process and also counting process, th:te were several re:ilpractices occurred. Though the :esp,onc ent No.1 brouglrt all the illegal and malpractices ma<1e by th e elected candii at e ,r: the notice of the Returning ()ffi<:er, t eey did not tal(e st:l)s to enquire into the matter. He r;ub nits that thrs appli,: r'-ion is not maintainable as it is onl, filed to a',.oid tri;Ll process in the eiection petitic'n trd the respor dr:n.t \o. t has filed all the relevant doc'rnt r ts with regard to t r: malpractices occurred in the eler:tio r; which ' l02l SLI- ( rrl.rr SCI 573 '1:oor1Bscc..t. ' 1024 SC . ( tr lir e SC 509 SKJ I.A.No.4 of 2024 in/ and EP No.15 of 2024 are required to be decided after trial ald at this stage, this B application is not maintainable. He further submits that the representation hled by the respondent No.1 dated

30.O9.2024 to the Election Commission of India and other officials to recount the votes in 33 Siddipet Assembly Constituency is pending consideration. He submits that the present application is filed to avoid the trial process in the election petition and also to avoid recounting process and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

12. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Eiection Petitioner has relied on the following Judgments:-

1. K. Babu Vs. M. Suaraja 2. Kimneo Haokip Hangshing Vs. Kenn Raikhans CONSIDERATION & FINDINGS

13. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent No. 1 / Election Petitioner filed the instant Election Petition questioning the election of the petitioner/ respondent No.1 mainly on the following grounds: o (2024) 4 scc 299 '120241 SCC Onfine SC 2548 9 SK,J l-A-No 1 oJ 2O21 .t1/on.i Et N ) 15 of2O2a 0 t,hat the nomination of the petitioner / re:rgrondent llo 1 ,vas improperly accepted by th': F e turning Off ice r, as the Form-26 affidavit wa.i s -r rmitted r;it h cr-rt disclosing the relevant mtlterial fttcts as rer r-rr -r:d under Law for the purpose ol- Se:tjo r 33-A of tht ll::resentation of People Act, 1951 (Li) T'he petitioner/respondent No. t hatl re sorted to tl-rt: ('orrupt practices of undue irtflu,rrtce by s;Lr lr>'rrssing the criminal arttecedents u'h ch were r e< pri:t:d to be placed on record un,ler Lir.\ / for the I)urpos;e of Section 33-A of the Rcpresen-zLtion of I)e,:pie Act, 1951, arrd (iii The petitioner/respondent Nc,.1 clc i.rerately lrai,ir g knowledge about his landecl prope r -ies, he l;h ru n the agricultural land as Non-agric -rltu r rl 1and. 74 . 'lh is (.)ourt perused the records with r,rgar d to the nominaliorr of the petitioner/respondent No. I fi.el along u,ith tl-r e Flle ction Petition. A perusal of the ple eiir .6 s of the Electton fr'e t ition, nowhere it is stated that thr: re;pondent No. 1/ lfl,:ct ion Petitioner made any obje<:tiorr b :f ore the Returnrrrg l)flicer at the time of scrutiny o. tht: rrc nLination @i''r!tn:tl r-_r 10 s/(,J LA.N?.1 of 2024 in/andDpNo jsof2024 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 petitioner/respondent No.1 merely stating that nomination of the petitioner/ respondent No. 1 was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. Moreover, the respondent No. 1/trlection petitioner has not made any complaint to the election authorities with regard to improper acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner/ respondent No. 1.

15. The other contention of the Respondent No.1/Election Petitioner is that, the petitioner/ respondent No.1 has resorted to corrupt practices of undue influence by suppressing the criminal antecedents r.r,hich were required to be placed on record under Law for the purpose of Section Si-a of the Act, 195i. In this regard, this Court perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner/ respondent No.1 in Form No.26, wherein the petitioner/ respondent No. 1 disclosed the particulars of the pending criminal cases against him and also cases of convictions. The respondent No. 1 / Election Petitioner has not given any \ particulars with regard to which cases were not disclosed 7 11 t- 5.f ;[;!4 by the pe t Ltioner/ respondent No. 1 in th,: rLf hdavit t.A.No.4 oJ 2U24 ^,',r,r,l EP ^ - submittec b,' 1-rirn in Form No.26. The Eler;tion prt:tioner merelv s;tit -i ng that the petitioner/ resllon,f en . No.1 suppress( o the criminal cases/FIRS pending agairrsit him and the [i .r' ction Petitioner has also n ot givr :rL any particr-rlar s about the charge sheets filerl agair rs t the petitior-r,:r/re spondent No.1. The Election Petit.ion itas to be conc st: ir r 1 have to contain ali the particular,j zrL out the crimina i: r ses which were suppresscd b y petition,:r i R :,;pondent No. 1 in the affidavit file d i. t Form No.26. [r l]rr: instant case, the respondent No 1/l)lection Petitionr:r hr.:, failed to file any particulars irbor-rt criminai cases, ['[Fls (,r charge sheets, which were supDres sed by the petrl icnr: : 'respondent No.1 in his affidavit

16. Ar:othcr contention of the Election Petitionel- s that, the pe,itior cr,/respondent No.1 deliberately I aving knowledgr a:tr-rt his landed properties, he has shcwn the agricultrrr r1 lrrnd as non-agricultural land pertair ring to Mittapalli Rr:,,r:nue Village of Siddipet Urban Mandal

17. This C,;rr11 p6.r"ed the documents filed .11, petitione rr' re ;pondent No. 1 at Page No. 129 ctf tLLe E k:ction l L2 "K,,, t A.No 4 ol 2O21tn/ondEpN() t.o1 )OZ< Petition i.e. photo Copy of online Dharani portal without any attestation of competent authority, which shows that the petitioner/ respondent No.1 is having agricultural lands in Sy.No.1037, situated at Mittapalli Revenue Village of Siddipet Urbal Mandal, but the petitioner/ Respondent No. 1 stated in Form-26 Affidavit that he purchased an extent of 1434 Sq.yards and 52O Sq.yards in Sy.No.1O37 situated at Mittapalli Village of Siddipet Mandal through registered document dated 15. lO.2O24 and. 21.08.2024 respectively. A perusa] of the registered documents Nos.7078 of 2Ot4 dated 15.10.2014 and SS6t of 2Ot4 dated 21.08.2014 shows that the petitioner/respondent status, stating No.1 purchased the property on square yard basis and nowhere it is mentioned that it is agricultural land. The respondent No. 1/Eiection petitioner basing on the Online Dharani portal petitioner/ respondent No.1 shown the agricultural land as non agricultural land. The respondent No. 1 / Election Petitioner has failed to file any authenticated document issued by the Revenue authorities showing that the petitioner/respondent No.l has shown particular property as non-agriculture land though it is a agricultural land. I. ri.rl,, r,f :lre same, the contention of the resl tc ndent 13 I A.No.4 of2A24 n,'at1ti EP sK'r 5 of2o24 ^) No.1/Ele ction Petitioner that the petitioner/ resl rc ndent No.1 cl:1,b,:-ate1y having knowledge aboul .ris landed propertr/, h r' sho'"r,n the agricultural l;end a i non- agriculturaJ [i Lnd cannot be accepted. 1 8. Tf e c :ntention of the respondent No. 1 / I )lection Petition,:r is r h at the petitioner/ respondent No . 1 f r led to submit pr oDe r records for expenditure as 1.he resl rc ndent No.l/Election Pctitioner has obtained all par:iculars through ''.i< co recording and also extract copv of the expendituri-, submitted by the petitioner/ respo ncle 1[ No.1 and observr:-:;i MCC, NCC, VST and TST Teamr; w:re also misguidec a nd liled Pen Drives contair: in g Video Recording.s i r Annexure VI. The respondenl No.1/l)lection Petition,-'r h a s not hled any Statement rtf r\cc< tLnt of expencliturt' sr-rbmitted b-y the petitioner / re sporrd(3r t No.1. There i:; rr-r 'nention in the Election Petition €rb,l1tt what \ /as tht: actual expenditure incurred b r petitionr:r- / re spondent No. I during the electron per od and r,,.hat t\ as the statement submitted b; petitioner /t'e s pondent No. 1 to the Election a.Ltthoritr€s a_nd hou, the s,.r rlo \\/as accepted by the Election zLutl orities. 14 . .i,(. / l-A.No 4 ot 2024 n/ ond E p No_ I J ol . Ozq The respondent No. 1/Election petitioner has not filed ar_ry supporting documents and the said contentions are verv vague. i 9' The respondent No. I /Election petitioner filed a pen Drive pertaining to some public meetings conducted by the petitioner/respondent No. 1. In the Election petition this Court cannot decide the expenditure incurred by the petitioner/ respondent No.1 during the election period merely basing on the averments in the trlection petition and Video footage of public meetings.

20. The other allegation of the respondent No. 1/Election Petitioner is that, on the polling day i.e. on 30. lI.2O23 aL 4.05 p.m. the petitioner/respondent No.1 called his followers and instructed them to increase the polting percentage and within one hour the polling percentagc rncreased from 4\o/o to 85% in particular polling booths and fiied one pen Drive of Audio recording of the WhatsApp in Annexure-Vl. But the respondent No. 1/trlection Petitioner failed to give booth_wise arrd hour_wise particulars of the polling percentage and there is no mentioning about any complaint was made to the SK'J 1.A.No.4 oJ 202.1 nl a Ld ,?P tI(.15 of 2024 concerrecl r -rthorities immediately after comp-etic n of the 15 eiection an I no copy of complaint is filed along ,vith the Election Pe .i -ion 21 . Thr: rt:.rpondent No.1/Election PetitiorLer li1ed r:ounter in the i rs;r arnt Interlocutory Application stat ng that he made rerrrcsentation to the Election Comnission cf India and otlrcrs; ctn 30.O9.2024 for recounting o1- vot.es. [n fact, the rcs;p rnrlr:nt No.l /trlection Petitioner filed the instant Electioe Pe-ition on 10.O1.2024 and it clea,rly shows that, aS afr aierthought, the respondent No. L/Election PetitiorLe- r Lade representation on 30.09.2024 to the Electio.-t (.1 rnmission of India and other tflic izLls for recour-r[irLg ]l- the votes in Siddipet Assembly Conslituency Therefc,rr . t f,is Court cannot take into consrderat.ic n of the said rerr:s;t:r.rlation for disposal of the instant I;tterlcrcutory Applicati,rrL Moreover, the respondent No. 1 / Election Petitior.e: h a s not liled the said representation b.,e bre this Court

22. T:-re ., udgments relied on by the learneci Senior Counsel lor tetitioner/respondent No. 1 squarr'Iv rqrply to I i ; I I i I i I I I I 16 , sI(,./ I A-No.4 of 2024 n/ and Ep No_15 of 2024 the facts of the Instant Interlocutory Application and the same are extracted as under:

23. In Kanimozhi Kantnqnidi Vs. A. Santhana Kumorr (supraT), wherein the Hon,bie Supreme Court of India, held as follows: "28. The legal position enunciated in afore_stated_ cases mag be summed up as undet- i. Section 83( 1)(a) of Rp Act, t gS j mand ates that an Election petition shall contain a concise statement of mateial facts on u.)hich the petitioner relies. If mateial facts are not stated in an Election petition, the some is liable to be dismissed on that ground_ alone, as the case utould be couered bg Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Ord,er 7 of the Code. ii. The mateiol facts must be such facts as uould afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and. Luould constitute the cause of action, that is euery fact u_thich it utould be necessary for the plaintiff/ petitioner to proue, if trauersed in order to support his nght to the jud.gment of court. Omission of a single material fact u.tould lead to an incompLete cause of action and the statement of plaint ttould become bad. iii. Mateial facts meon the entire bund.le of facts u_thich u,nuld constitute a complete couse of action. Material facts uLould include positiue statement of facts as also positiue auerment of a negatiue fact, if necessary. iu. In order to get an election declared- as uoid under Section l OO( 1 )(d)(iu) of the RP Act, the Election petitioner 77 tA \,!u4o. 10. 1 nr'r a ts.1){z!< t t1.11.;i euer thctt on account of non con,pliance with the Ttro ti.sions of the Constitution or of the Act or. t ny rules <,r c r rTers made under the Act, the result oJ tlte election, i1 5p far as it concemed the retunted car drd e, uas r ,'tt;,.t e iallll affected. u. Tl,,e ,it ection petition is a senous matter and it c utnot be t'e.it.(l lightlg or in a fonciful ntanner n.tr is it g uen to o L,er: on uho uses it as a handLe for uexctious pL rpose. uL. 4t. I)lection petition can be summarily ct.ismis:;e i on the r/? 1.s..;i(rrl of a stngte rnateial fact [eadirry to an ,nt oit 4.Lete cause of action, or orrrlsslt,rr t,) c( ntann a {rol{-'1.;.-, statement of material facts ort u.tt,[ch the pe litirn'.er relies for establishittg e celtse c f a,:t,on, in (rrr?nr se of the potuers under Clause (a) oJ ,iirLle 11 <tJ )rrt-t-r VII CPC read uitlt the mandatonl r,zqui -ements erL;oir ed bg Section 83 of the Rp Act. ):1-1-,\: !i3. -,\:; elaborately discussecl earlier, Secttori S3 ,l )(o) of ['-P t\ct ,nandates that an Election petition slu:ll c< ntain a coz,r'l,se statemerLl of mateial firrcts on t,.thictt_ pt.t,tioner r.=|t.,s,, ,,.rtd tuhich facts cottstitute a coltse oJ clctio t. Such frlt: s t)ould include positiue stotenent c f fa:ts zl; also posittt e' auerment of negatiue fact. Omissi,trt o_r a. sir,.gular .ftt<:, t,uc tld lead to incomplete cause of actior,. Sc 1ar as tlte ytr:sent petition is concerned., there is rlo o.L e.rnent tr.aile i$ to hou.t there u)as non-co.nplitnct: taith p'o,)L.;to"ts of the Constitution or of Rp Act or of thtt Rules ot- t )rc, €,r made thereunder anci as to L cttu sTtc 1 non_ conlDLitTtrce had rnaterially aJfected the re,sult o.f. the e Lec,.ir_nt .so as fo attract the ground und_er ,)ection 1B I.A.N,.4 of2024 in/and Ep No.tS ot;{ii 1o0(1)(d)(iu) of the Rp Act, for cleclaring the election to be uoid. The omission to state such uital and basic facts has rendered the petition liable to be d-ismissed under ()rder VII, Rule t1(a) CpC read tuith Section 83(i)(a) of the Rp Act, 1951". \

24. In Harishankor Jqin Vs. Sonic Gqnd.hi (supra 2), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held. that : "33. Without fufther burdening this judgment by dealing uith each and euery other auerment made in the tu_to election petitions, it u-,ould. suffi_ce to saA that we haue carefullg read each of the two election petitions and heizrd. each of the tuo election_petitioners (oppellants) in uery many details spectaLlg on the aspect of the election petitions suffeing Jrom the uice of not satisfying the mandatory requirement of pleading mateiol facts as required bg Section B2(t)(a) of RpA 1951 ond we are satisfied that the tuo eLection petitions d.o not satisfy the requirement statutoilg enacted and judiciallg explained in umpteen number of decisions. The petitions are hopelessly uague antd completelg bald in the allegations made, most of which could not possiblg be utithin the personal knou.rledge of the petitioners but stiLt ueified. as hae to their knoutledge, uithout inclicating the source. Such plead.ings cannot amount to disclosing anA cause of action and_ are required to be rejected/ dismissed_ under Ord.er VII Rule 11 CPC. questions . .. . . . . . Houteuer, in spite of anstteing these in fauour of the appellonts Aet the election l - 19 1 A.Na l af 2024 i,'ut(L Di' l\ petiti.ons fiLed bg them cannot be directed to be he tied or merits as the bald and uogue auennents the zl'z:t ion petitions do not sotisfg the rec,uire pborTinq mateial facts ruithin the meaning oJ B2(1t(ct) oJ RPA 1951 read with the requirements VIi R.ulr 11 CPC. The decision of the High t)ourt rli: tlut tt.Lt,; election petitions at the prelimnary s srrslrriru:rl though for reasons sometuha' di-fert Ilrrrsr: rr.;slgrned by the High Court. Tlrc uppe dls;ni i.sse,l but tuithout ang order as to the costs". SK,J ).'3 oJ202a ard and n .ade in n .ent of ,le ction o,' Order ;r:rlssingt tage, is nt from a[s are

25. In Kati)m Uddin Barbhuiga Vs. Aminul Hlaque Laskan' end' others (supra 3/, whereir the Iftrnble Supreme Clc'trrt held that : *2.3. .,q s tanspiing from the Electiort pzttti,t.., the resp()rL.1ent no. t himself had not raised <uty oltje clion in tur tirtg tlqrzinst the nomination f.led by the Appt'll<tnt, at the tirne. xF scntting made bg the Reiunl,ll(l )fficer uru7er i; ?ction 36 of the Act. According t,t fum. \,2 had. rcti.;e,7 oral objection uith regard. to the ec ucation quoli.;1cc t,on stated by the Appellant in ,-he AJfiLtttuit in Fonn-26.. If he could make oral objection, h,z c:olltl t:; well, hcute ruule objection in utriting against th,z acce.pttzce of notniltat;ln of the Appellant, and in that co::e the ,Re hrning O|'li-ctr t;otLld haue decided his objection ur der sub.section (2) tf Se:tion 36, after holding a summary itr_quia. Euen if it is tc:e1't,zd that he had raised an oral obj zcti< n u,tith reg:ff,7 t() the educational qualification oJ' tte ,41,p ellant beforc tt'te Returning Officer at the time of sotr_ti.t.1, the respo"l.let Lt No. t has failed to make auem ertt in the \ 20 "f !.A.No.4 of 2024 n/ad Ep N..ts :[;J4 Election Petition as to hou.t Appellant,s nomination utas liable to be rejected bg the Returning Offtcer on the ground.s mentioned in Section 36(2) of the Act, so as to make his ca.se fall under clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) tLnt there uas improper acceptance of the nomination of the Appettant. The non-mentioning of the particulars as to hotu such improper acceptance of nomination had" materiallg affected. the result of the election, is apparent on the face of the Election Petition.

24. As stated earlier, in Election petition, the pleadings haue to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the aLlegations contained in Election petition d.o not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 1OO and do not conform to the requirement of Section Bl and 83 of the Act, the Election Petition is liable to be rejected under Ord"er VII, Rule 11 of CPC. An omission of a single mateial fact Ieading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of mateial facts on uhich the Election petitioner relies for establishing a couse of action, uould entaiL rejection of Election petition under Ord.er VII Rule 1 1 read with Section 83 and 87. of the Rp Act..

26. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/Election Petitioner in K.Babu Vs.M.Suaraj (stpra 4) not apply to the facts of the instant Interlocutory application as the facts are different ' 2t

1.A.Na.4 oI 2( 2 1 ,t, ut7 I P Na t s .J ;[il4 27. Ario -lrer Judgment relied on t,]' the learned Counscl 1or the respondent No.1/Election PetLtioner in Kimneo )claokip Hangshing 7s. Kenn Roikha,n (supra .51 also not apply to the facts of th: instant Interlor:u.trrry application as re;pondent No.17'E,1er:r,ion Petitioner failed to file any rloc rment in supp()rt ,rf their contention.

28. Tht.: Mection Petition has to be prer:ise. specific and -rrrarnbiguous as held by the Hrrntrle, Supreme Court in lfizrim Uddin Barbhuiga Vs. Arrinrtl Haque Laskana., l.Dherein the Hon'ble Supreme, Coun tf India held os t,:.ru7er: "21. \s stated earlier, in Election Petition, the plectdings \at't= lo be precise, specific and unotnb,gtLo t-:;. If the LllelTtttions contained in Election PetitiLtrt c'o n c . set out 7r,tur r,l s as contemploted in Section I)C or d do not :o;tfonn to the requirement of Section 8l cutcl. 83 o-F the Act, '.fut tl:t.e ction Petition is liable to be rejected under Ord.er VII, Qule 1 1 of CPC. An omission of a sitgle mc terial fact 'er,-rl. u.7 lo an incomplete cause of aclLon or o nisszon [o corltair'. a concise statement of mateial tact:; on uthich the ,9lccttc,t petitioner relies for establishing a cou..s( <>f action, u 202+ sa r: , )\ I I.,rt: sc 509 \ 22 SK,J I.A.No 4 of 2024 tL/a d EP No.15 oI2024 would entoil rejectton of Election PetitiorL under Order WI Rule 11 read uith Section 83 and 87 of the RP Act"

29. A bare reading of the Election Petition and documents hled aiong with the trlection Petition, it emerges that the respondent No.1/trlection Petitioner has made only bald and vague allegations in the Election Petition without stating the material facts in support thereof as required to be stated under Sections 83 ( 1) (a) and 100 of the Act, 195 1 .

30. The relevant provisions for the election petition are Section 83 and Section i00(1)(d) of the Act, 1951 which reads as under:

83. Cortents of petition.-(1) An clection pctition- (a) shall contain a concise statement of thc material lacts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as tull a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date ind place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the pctitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings: [Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed iorm in support of the allegation of such corrupt Practice and the particulars thereof. (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition 23 s(,J 1OO. (irourrds for declaring election to be void.-- (1) SubJr(t to the pro!ision r trl sub-section (2) if the High court is o1 opir:ion- (a) (br (c ... (d) thrLt rr'r rcsult of the election, in so far as it conccrns a r:turned cancli,ler ir , l.ras been materially affected- {i) r,\ rhe irproper acceptance or any nomination, or (ii) r1 an. rorrupt practice committed in the interests cf the rtturned canrlirl:r:t Ib], an agent other than his election agenl], o: (iii) b\ trr improper reception, refusal or rejection o[ a Lt,\ vl,t(: cr the reci:plic r c,I anv vote which is void, or {irl b ' r:.r -r non-compliance with the provisions of ,he C or st t'rtion or oI thir, 1'r t or of an)' rules or orders made under this 1!cr, trc t{igh CoLL.t rhalL dcciare the electron ofthe returned candidatc to b: void. 3 1 . Th e irr stant Election Petition does not cc nlplies \\.ith Soci1o: 83 and 100 (1) (d) of the lict, 1951 'lhere n( triable issue with regard tc tl-re r leged 1S malpraotice ; basing on the averments and c.o(ll rrnents filed by tl.rer lDlection Petitioner in the instan.- ce se. In view cf tne same, the petition filed by the petitioner/r:,lspondent No. 1 under Rule-1 t of Or1:r-VII of CPC s rrrrr ntainable.

32. In vic.r' of the above finding, th(t r,lsp )ndent No.1/E1er:t.iorr Petitioner has not set out the g: cunds as contonlF)lated in Section 1OO and the rr:quirr:rt,lnt of Section t]1 and 83 of the Act, 195 1 the instant Interloc ul or-l Petition br. petition,rr / rr: s;pondent No.1 is liable to be. allorvr:c[ and 24 the Election petition filed No.1/Election petitioner is liable to be rejected Rule- 1 1 of Order_VII of CpC. I.A.NL.4 of 2024 n/ar| ,, *" ,, .r rt{;l by the respondent ') .) Accordingly, the I.A.No.4 of 2024 in E.p.No.t5 of 2024 is allowed. Consequentiy, the trlection petition No.15 of 2024 filed by the respondent No. 1/Election Petitioner is hereby rejected. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// sD/- A.V.S.S.C. S.M. SARMA J INT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Sri Justice K. SARATH (For His Lordships XinO eerusail To

1. The Etection Co.Ti","lo,n9l State of Telangana, 1.rfloor, DTCp Buildinos 2. The Hon'ble Soeak A. C Guards, Hyderabad. tdv-sp".iijr ri"Jrt?g"o ei ji, ji"l.[,"#;;L:,i,1;:?:g:liffi J,gl.^?:::?ffi ;,,,,'.uAssemb,y

3. The Returning Offic I elansana strt".(B;kSlSjddipet Assemblv constituencv, siddipet District, .state Legisrative Assembry, Legisratrve Assembry Buirding, Nampaly, Hvo"oo"oiayl'o"rriillr*^g"r) 4- The secretary, Terangana c. 11 LR Copies : i[:,'":i,"J,rt3:fi1" I lliri:Ti?S"relangana Advocates Association, Library, Hish courr u. One CC to SRt. SESHADRT GOALLA, Advocate tOpUCl t to sRl RAMAVARAM cHANDRAsHEKAR REDDv, Advocare Union or rndia Ministry or raw, Justice and companv ,"&'r??

10. Two CD Copies xut/sh (t/ I t HIGH COURT DATED:10/06/202{; Note: L.R. COPII:S T(' llE MARKED ORDER t.A. NO. 4 0F 20?4 IN/AND ELECTION PETITI()N lrlo.15 of 2024 *\:- : SiifF) 1Hi o 2[ JrJN ?i,?l ! I z ,^ .t ;l*. AI,I,OWINC THI.- I .{. \O.4 OF 2024 AND REJECTIN(;'fHIi ELECTION PETITION. e,>' ( , \:i ?\:.< 1O\ ;,,)?