The High Court · 2025

Order

1. The petitioner, u4to is the respondent No.1 in E.P.No.16 of 2024,liled 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 petitioncr/Respondent No.1 and Sri A.Raghu Ram, learned Counsel lor the respondent No. 1/Election Petitioner and perused the record. The contentions of the Petitioner/Respondent No.1.

3. Learned Counscl lor the petitioner/respondent No.1 submits that the respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition to declare ttre election of the petitioner from Assembly of No.40-Patalcheru Assembly Constitution, State of Telangana w,hich was held on 30. 11.2023 as I t 2 r...1 s< J l.15 '.1! P \o i6 ol 2024 illegal, null and void and to call for the te<:ords. l'hc petitior-rer herein was elected as Member ll Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Patancherr,t Assemblv Constituency from Bharat Rashtra Samitl'ri party. The Election Petition is entirely misconceivec. untenable, borne out of absurd, general and vagLt:: allegalions without any material facts and cogcnt evidencc and has been filed merely based on an aftcrthor-Lqht rlnl-v trl cause inconvenience to the petitioner in lari'ful exercise of his functions and duties and to subject the petitioner to judicial process, so as t o curtail the working efhciency of the petitioner. 'l'he Dlection Petition under Section 100 ( 1 ) (d) (i) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (lt,r short 'l? P Act') contending that the nominillrc)n ol the petitioner/respondent No.1 has been improperly accepted on the ground that the petitiont:.-/rcspondcnt No.1 has allegedly not disclosed cerlailr information. The alfidavit filed in support of the Electr' rn Petition is bereft of any pleadings as to hovv th:r allegations ./ 3 tANo2.t2a25.fl SK,J P No l5 012024 mentioned under (a) to (d) has materially affected the result of the Election Petitlon. It is settled law that whenever al 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 petitioner/respondent No. I woulcl further submit that in the absence of any pleading demonstrating hor,v the election has been materiall-v affected, merely alleging that the nomination has been improperly accepted as the petitioner/respondent No. I suppressed 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 I t 4 rA Nc 2 (,' : r:5 ,. ., ttl: f ' ""

5. The learned Counsel petitioner/respondent No.1 would furth<:r submit that in the absence of any pleadings how the said notr- disclosure of the alleged information is ol-subsl.antial in nature, entitling rejection of nom nation and furthermore impacting the candidature or the rcsult of an Election Petition in the absence of such pleadings. the same cannot constitute a ground utlcler Scction 1oo (1) (d) (i) of the R.P Act.

6. The learned Counsel fr>r petitioner/respondent No. 1 would further submit that the pleadings with regard to the a1le ged crorrtrpI practice has to be precise, specific and rLnambigutlus as to which corrupt practice does it con:;titute un<lcr those mentioned under Section 123 of the R P Act' The Election Petitioner without disclosing the material facts, vaguely alleges that the petitionerr has unduly influcncing and appealed the voters through corrupt practices. 5 I A No 2 oI2025 L1 SK,J E P No 16 0t 2024

7. The learned Counsel 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 1S supported by legally acceptable material evidence without an iota doubt as to such allegation, the Election Petition cannot be entertained and wili 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 petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that t I 6 I rA No 2 cr 'D2) rll€ SK..J P Nr 16 of2024 it is evident from mere pleadings and the grounds asserted in the trlection Petition that the trlection Petitioner has failed to make out any grcunds under Section 100 ol the Act and on this ground a-lone thc Election petition is liable to be rejected. In the absence of any pleadings constituting any cause ol'ar:tion much less forming part of grounds S envis,aged under Section 100 of the R.P Act, 1951 and the trlection Petition is liable to be dismissed. g. The petitioner/Respondent No.1 would sutrmit that to learned Counsel raise a cause of action for filing of the Elet:tion Petition has concocted the said allegations solely relying on certain entries in Dharani Portal, which even otherwise do not confer title or cannot be deetned as title documents and the said properties have been alienated in favour of third parties way back in the year 2Ol4 and 2016 vide registered docurrtents and the said alienations are in the pubtic donrain and the 7 ra No 2 or 2025 SK,J P No 16 oi 2024 C /J trlection Petitioner suppressing the above said facts and solely relying on the entries made in the Dharani Porta-l has filed the Election Petition.

10. The learned Counsel petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that the allegation of the Election Petitioner that the petitioner has been receiving income from GMR Iilling Station is denied and the said altegation is without any cvidence on record. The petitioner has disclosed all the source of income which includes business income in the afhdavit, 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 petitioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that in so far as the inadvertence in respect of disclosure of educationa,l qualification is concerned as was done in the earlier nomination affidavit, it is settlecl law that t t 8 fn ruo Z r,r:CZ: rrf SK.] P N. 16 012024 every error in the Nomination Form is not il ground for an Election Petition unless such non-disclosure has materially allected the bearing on the r(rsult of the election. Even otherwise, it may be not'3d that the petitioner has rightfuliy disclosed his educational qualifications in the Nomination Form, zrs such the said contention is also devoid ol any merit' L2. The learned Counsel peti.tioner/respondent No.1 would further submit that the allegation of the Election Petitioner that the petitioner/respondent No.1 has misrepresrented about the loans/dues to the Bank, such allegation baseless facts at hand' It is and without appreciation of pertinent to note that Form 26 of the nomination papcr only requires the outstanding 1661 alnr-runt to be submitted, therefore though a Rs.6,41,59,300/ was sanctioned from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited and as on dztte of filing of nomination and submission of Form No 26 only .il I No 2 ot 2025 il7 t ^ SKJ Its.6,OO,41 ,778/- was outstanding amount and the same was rightfully disclosed in Form No.26. Therefore, the said allegation is'also devoid of any ment.

13. The learned Counsel petitioner/respondent No. 1 would further submit that it is not generally permissible to interfere with the Likrction 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 trlection Petition, the respondent No.1/Election petitioner has barcly raised any allegations of corrupt practicc against the petitioner/respondent No.1 which is insufhcient for maintaining the Election petition and I t there are no merits in the trlection petition and rcquested to reject the Election Petition 10 ,O *", . aO., 'f SK,J P No 16 of 2024 L4. The learned Counsel petitioner/ respondent No. 1 in suptrort of his contentions, placed reliance on the following Judgments:

7. Karim Ud.din Barbhuiga Vs.Atninul Haque Laskar and othersl

2. Karikho Kri Vs. Nune Tagdng2

3. Thaneeru Harish Rco Vs. Gadhagoni Ch'zkrad.ahr Goud and anothef

4. Dhartipaka Madan Lal Agarual Vs. Raiiv Gandhi+ 5. Kanirnozhi Kantnanidhi Vs. A.Santhznd Kumar & Otherss CONTENTIO NS OF THE RESPONDENT No, I/ELECTION PETITIONER

15. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner basing on the counter, would submit that application filed by petitioner/respondent No. 1 under Order VII, Rule-11 ol CPC is frivolous, vexatious and fiiled u'ith a solitary intention to dealy the fair tria-l of Election Petition. The ' 2024 SCC Online SCC509 ? 2024 SCC Ont-inc sc 519 ' 2025 SCC Online TS 151 I 1987 Supp sCC 93 t 2023 SCC Onlinc SC 571 11 { sx.r rA No 2 of 2025 tle e No rc ot ZOZn 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 ll.Ol.2024 emd the petitioner/respondent No.1 has put forth his appearance on 15.04.2024 and filed his defence even belatedly i.e. on 1O.O7.2024 without taking any steps to file application under Order-VII, Rule-ll. 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. l/Election Petitioner would further submit that the Election Petition discloses a valid cause of action supported by specific and materia_l pleadings. The Election Petition details multiple grounds under Section lOO (1) (d) (i) and (iv) of the Act, 1951 including lmproper acceptance of nomination, suppression of t I 12 I ra r. . . zo-. {l SKJ P No r6 o12024 assets, misstatement of liabilities, misre 1;resentation of qualihcations and commission of corrul>1 practices and the said averments give rise to triabit: issues, u'hich only be adjudicated upon evidence, as such the requirement under Section 83 of the Act are substaltially complied with. It is settl:d principle of law that the pleadings must be read as a whole and not in isoiation or with hyper-technical scrrrtiny. The Election Petition contains a coherent and narrative disclosing how the alleged acts ancl ontissit>ns of the returned candidate materiallv affected the outcome of the election L7. The learned Counsel for thr: respondent No. I /Election Petitioner submits that the scope of Order-VII, Rule-11 is limited. The jurisdiction under Order-VII, Rule-11 is confined to the avt:rments in the plaint i.e. Election Petition. It does not permit an inquiry into the truth or falsity of the aliegations. The grounds by the petitioner in thr,' Interlocutory 1 t 13 t a uo z or zozs tll SK,J P No 16 oI2024 Application pertain to matters of evidence, proof arrd merit, which cannot be adjudicated under Order-VII, Rule-l1. The law of elections, by its very nature is a matter of public importance and democratic integrity. Thc courts have consistently held that an Election Petition should not be dismissed at the threshold unless it is wholly and demonstrably untriable.

18. The Iearned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petition would further submit that the trlection Petition sufficiently sets out material facts and specific instances of concealment, dates of alienation, property recorcls and misrepresentations and whether these are ultimately proved is a material of trial, not for rejection under application filed under Order-VII, Rule- I 1. The Election Petition is hled in full compliance with Sections 81, 83 and 1O0 of the Act, 1951 and have duly set out material facts and legal grounds, particularly under Section 10O (1) (d) (i) and 100 (1) (d) (iv), establishing that the acceptance of the_ -/' 1 I 14 lANoi .2 25 r SKJ P No 16 0l 2C?! nomination paper was improper and tfrat it materially affected the result of the election. L9. The learned Counsel for thc respondent No.1/Election Petitioner would further subrnit that the contention of the petitioner that the Elt:,:tron Petition discloses no cause of action is baseless ar d fa1se. The trlection Petition also satislied the retluirement of concise pleadings as mandated under Set'tion 83 of the Act. Further, it is also settlecl laiv that non- disclosure of assets or liabilities or missrtatemt:nts in the affidavit under Fomr-26 are gra,'e violations impacting electoral fairness. The Electron Petitioner has cleally pieaded all primary and rntrterial facts including the nature of suppression and the documentar5r basis for each claim, and hence the principles enunciated under Order-VII, R,-r1e-11do not apply as the petitioner disclose triable issues.

20. The learned Counsel for thc respondent No.1/trlection Petitioner would submit tlrat there is I J 15 teuozotzozs rlqt SK,J P No 16 o12024 fine distinction between 'material facts' and 'material particulars'. Fr-rrther, the Election Petitioner has specifically pieaded hou, 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 qualihcations 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- 1 1 of CPC

21. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 would further submit that the trlection 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 I t ,o*.r" rr,r,fL SKJ P No l5 0l20it4 petitioner has disrupted the electoral procesis by gifting, unduly influencing and appealirrll the voters through corrupt practices. On29.lO'2O2i at 6.00 p'm at GMR function Hall at Pzrtan::heru, the petitioner/ respondent No.1 promised to clisbursc one crore rupees to each to the 28 communit" groups and also issued backdated Government larrd allotment letters each valued at Rs.S Crores ar.d rcqucstcd them to vote for him and thereby interlered u'ith free exercise of electoral right. The Election f')t.tition ciearly narrates the means and methods usecl for undue influence, including references to caste-based appeais and financial inducements, which fall rv:thin Section 123 (2)and 123 (4) of the Act.

22. The learned Counsel for the: respondent No.l/trlection Petitioner wor-.rld further sullmit that the assertion of the petitioner that the prcperties were a,lienated is a matter for evidence ' The eristence of the property entries on the Dharani Portal trs; on the date I c 17 4, t^No2ot2025 tlE SK.J P No 16 oi 2024 of nornination 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 electora-l disclosure obligations. The discrepancy 1n educational qualihcations 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.4O Lakhs is substantiaL and the explanation offered by the petitioner 15 an afterthought and not supported by bank or Form No.26 disclosures.

23. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. l/Election Petitioner would further submit that a bare reading of Order-VII, Rule-1l CPC makes it abundantly clear that the plaint can be rejected only if it falls within one of the specihed grounds. The t t 1B f rA N. . r'2025 {L SXJ P No 16 0t 2024 contentions raised by the petitioner not satisfy- any of the grounds. All the grounds urgr:d pertain to disputed and triable questions of 1act, which necessarily require adjudication upon evidence ar-ld cannot be summarily decided in an applir:ation under Order-VII, Rule-11 CPC and the petition is liable to be dismissed ald requested to dismiss the petition. 24, The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner in support of h,s contentions relied on the following Judgments:

7. V.S.Achuthqnnandan Vs. P.J.Francis and anotheF

2. P.Guttnta Raj Reddg Vs. P.Neelradha Reddg qnd othersT CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS

25. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered vierv that the respondent No.1 herein filed Eleclir>n Petition questioning the election of the petitionr:r/respondcnt No.1, mainly on the following grounds: o ( 1999) -: scc 737 ' (20 r-5) 8 SCC l3l .]l 19 lA No 2 or202s ,/t SK,J P No 16 of 2024 Non-Disclosure of Assets in the Nomination Paper in Form No.26. Non-Disclosure of Income in the Nomination Paper in Form No.26. iiil Misrepresentation about the Educational Qualifications ivl 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. I filed along with the trlection 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 nomination of petitioner/respondent No. 1 by the Returning Officer The respondent No.1/trlection petitioner, without hling any objection for acceptance of nomination of the petitioner/respondent No. 1, merely stating that the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No. 1 was I t 20 lA Nc 2 rf2025 r / IL SI(,J P No 16 012024 improperly accepted by the Returning Oflicer Moreover, the respondent No.1/Election F'etitioner has not made any complaint to the electiorl authorities vvith regard to improper acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner/respondent No. 1. 27 With regard to the allegation of non-clisclosure of the assets by the petitioner/respondenl. No. 1, the contention of the Election Petitioner is that the petitioner/respondent No.t has not dis;closed of all immovable assets in Form No.26 and stated that the petitioner/ respondent No.1 is having Lands to an exten[ of Ac.3. 1 100 Guntas in Sy.No.l59 I A, an extent of Ac.O.1300 in Sy.No. 166 I A., an extent of 1.0700 Guntas in Sy.No. 767 I a, an extent of Ac. ...0100 guntas in Sy.No. 168 I a and an extent of Ac. 1.Oll0O guntas in Sy.No.168 laa, recorded in Khata No'578, situated at Patanchcru Village an Mandal, Sanga Re<ldy District 2a. This Court perused the documents filed by the respondent No.1/trlection Petitioner at Fage Nos.39 to I ",1 21 rA No 2 or 2025 '/ o ," ,u rtJll ", 43 of the Election Petition i.e. copies of the Dharani Portal in respect of Survey Nos.159/A, 166 lA and 167 /A, without any attestation from the competent authorities to show that the petitioner/respondent No.l 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 2OO 1 -2OO2 to 2OO8-2OO9, 20 LO-2O I t, 20 I S -2O 16 and, 20 L9 _2O2O are liled at Page Nos.45 to 180 of the Eiection petition. The contention of the petitioner/respondent No.1 is that he has already sold or alienated the said properties during the years 2Ol4 and 2016 through registered document Nos.5O72/2014, dated lO.O4.2Ol4, 5O73/2014, dated 10.04.2O14, 2S4O2l2Ot6, dated

21.09.2016 and 25403 of 2Ot6 dated 21.09.2Ot6 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 ,o show that the properties mentioned by him are in I i 22 r^ N). '. 2r ,/J r r". ,. .c;" sr...r 4 the name ol tl-re petitioner/respondent lio' 1 zrs on the date of nomination except online copl of Dharani Portai. In view of the above, merely t.'asing on the entries in Dhanar Portal this Court cant to1 acce pt the contention of the respondent No'1/Itlection Petitioner and morcover, thc entries in Dharali )<irtal cannot create any titlc ol the properties' In "''ir:w of these circumstartccs, basing on the said do< uments, this Court canuot proceed further in the Elccl ion Petition as the pe titioncr/ re spondent No' 1 not di:;closed ali the immovablt- ProPerties.

29. The contention of the respondenl' No'1/ltlection Petitioner is that, the petitioner/respondent No' 1 is receiving income liom the petrol Bunk, rramely GMR Fiiling Slation situatecl in the lands on'ned by the petitioner/respondent No.1 in Sy' 1\o'50/AA of Patancheru and the petitioner'/responc:cnt No'1 has not disclosed the said income in the nonrination Form' ) 23 lA No 2 of2025 r.t' SK.J P No 16 or 202!

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 woitld show that they wcre 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.l/E1ection Petitioner failed to hle any documents to show that the petitioner/respondent No. 1 is the owner of the said GMR hlling 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 t t 24 I All.2 (t 2a25 nf SK.J P No 16 of 2Cr24 his educational qualifications in the No:rrination Form sr-rbmitted in t1're year 2023, as in.rtLe Nomination Form subrnittcd by the petitioner/Respondent No. 1 in the year, 2Ol4 he declared that he cornpleted X Class by mentioning as 'SSC Board frorn Zllla praja parishad High Schooi in ttre relevalt educational qualifications Coh-rmn, v,,hcreets in the For.m No.26 sr_rltmittcd by thc petitioner in the ycar 202,3 he mentionr:d as IX-Class from ZPHS (Boys) School, Patalcheru-1977.

32. Thc respondent No.1/Election peti[ioner has not hled any document u,ith regard to actrrral eclucationa_l qualihcations of the petitioner/resltondent No. 1. Without there being any document, this Clourt calnot declare that petitioner/respondent No.1 has misrepresented about his educational qualifications. Further, there: is no much difference between the educational quaiilications of Class-IX ar.rd Class-X, as rnentioned earlier and such declareLtion of the petitioner/rcspondent No.1 regarding educational I .E, t*., rA No 2 ot 2025,fe c uo te ot xia 1 qualifications does not materia-lly affect the election of the petitioner/respondent No. 1.

33. The other ground raised by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner 1S petitioner/respondent No.1 m1s re p re se n tatron 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 04.05.2OI8, but in the nomination form the petitioner disclosed lesser amount of Rs.6,00,41,778/-. But the respondent No. 1/trlection Petitioner failed to file any document to show that the petitioner is having dues to Dewarr Housing Finance Corporation Limited as on the date of liling of nomination forrn i.e. lo.l1 .2023. Even as per the contention of the respondent No. 1)'Election t t ll) LA No 2 .i 20:t5 SK,J P No 16 o12024 I I Petitioner, the respondent No.1 has obtained loal of Rs.6,41,59,300/- on 04.05.2018 and the nomination 2023. As the was filed in the year, pef,itioner/respondent No.1 has been payir-rg the instaliments from 2018 to 2023, the amolrnt would be reduced. The respondent No. 1/Election Petitioner relied on the date of obtaining Lratr by the petitioner/ respondent No.1, but not as on the date of declaration, which was made after live 1'eals from the date of obtaining loan amount. In view ol- the same, the ground raised by the respondent llo.l/trlection Petitioner cannot be acceptable and the same is very vague.

35. Another ground raised by the respondent No.1/Election Petitioner IS petitioner/respondent No. t has disruptecl the electoral process by gifting, unduly influencing artcl appcaling the voters through corrupt practice on 29.10.2023 at

6.O0 p.m at GMR Function Hall at Pat''rncheru ald .,.rtt, 27 lA No.2 of 2025 SKJ P No 16 of 2024 f 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 a,long with the Election Petition at Page Nos. 185 to 213 arld communication between one V.Ravi I(rishna, Advocate and the election authorities. The said Ravi Krishna made e-mail complaint on 13.11.2023 to the Chief Electora-l Officer promises made by petitioner/Respondent No. 1, without mentioning date, time and venue. In response to the e-mail complaint dated 73.11.2023, the Chief Electoral C)fficer, vide letter dated 17 .11.2023 has directed the District Collector, Salga Reddy to take necessary action in the matter. In response thereto the letter, the District t t ZO I /t N. . of 2025 SK..r P No 16 0f 2024 L It Collector, after petitioner/respondent No' 1 submitted his report issuing notice stating that no meeting was conductcd on 02'11'2Q23 as alleged by the complaint and there js no concrete evidence support of ttie allcgation of th': complainant as snch the same is not liable tor anv cons'deration and the said letter was communicale c to the Chief Electoral Officer on 23.11.2023. Therealter a1so, tl-re 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 the meeting, where the and ventle of petitioner/respondent No.1 promised to have disburse Rupees. 28 Crores i.e. 1 Crore to ezl':h cornmunity group.

37. The Elections were held on 3A 112023, and results were declared on O5. L2.2023' '{[tcr declaration of the election results, the said V'Rar"krishna, made another complaint to the Chief Eleclc rzri Officer, on )o I A Na 2 ot 2azs,y! r r * )#l ".*"

06.12.2023, shting that the petitioner/Respondent No. t has violated model code of Conduct by bribing communitSz groups in a meeting to give one Crore Rupees to each community group by mentioning date as 29. 1O.2O23, time as 6.0O pm ald Venue as GMR Function Hall at patancheru and the respondent No.1/Election petitioner is relying on the sa_rne. Petitioner on Petition n that the meeting on The

38. resPondent No.1/Election submitted a pen drive along with the Ele at Page No.36O in support of his conten petitoner/respondent No. 1 conducted a Function Ha]l, Patancheru. has been vjewed by this Court. clipping, the pefitioner/respondent a meetlng with perika Sangam no date, time or piace except mendoning as . In the sajd meeting, gave speech about

29.10.2023 at c.M.R The said video ciipping In the said video No.1 addressed community people, but there is of such meeting in the banner, "Perika Sangam Atmeeya Sabha,, the petitioner/respondent No. 1 t ( 30 Z lA \. . o 2025 ld SKJ P No r6 o12024 allotment of land for construction of co:lmunitv halls and promised to pay arnounts, but rherc was no request to voters to vote him in the r:lections. The contention of the respoirdent No. 1 / tr1ec t ion petitioncr that the petitioner/respondent No. 1 involved in corrupt practices cannot be acceptable. rrercly basing on the video clipping vrithout any date, t.ime and venue submitted by the respondent No.1/Election petitioner. Moreover', the allotment letters filed by tirer rcsponde rrt No. l/trlection Pel.itioner from page Nos.2l5 to 301 \,vere issued by the Ameenpoor Municipality on

07.1O.2023, for construction of 29 Communitv llalls. The Election Code came with effect from ()!).7O.2O23 as per the Notification issued by the Chief trlectoral Officer, 'lelangana State. Along with lhe Election Petition no documents are filed to sl ow that any proceedir-rgs were issued after comnrencement of Election Code at the instance of petitionerr,/respondent No.1. In view of the same, the conttrntion of the Election Petitioner that the petitioner/ rcsprtnclent No. 1 ,] JI r A No 2 or 2o2s in/E SK,J 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 trlection Petition, the application hled by the petitioner/respondent No.1 under Order-VII, Rule-ll of CPC, at the stage of framing issues, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed

40. The said contention of the learned Cor-rnsel for the respondent No. 1/Election Petitioner is not sustainable, as there is no bar for entertaining the applications under order-Vll, Rule 11 of CPC at any stage as held by the Honble Supreme Court in -Frost Internationo.l Limited Vs. Milqn Deaelopers and Builders Put. 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 '(:ozz) s scc 6:: I I JZ 6 rA \- .r:o:. ir/rP Nr r5or2ura l elevant portion of the said .Iudgment is extracted as under: "37. It uas futlher held tltat if on a me at tirt.gfu I rectc{ingl ctf the piain| it is found that the suit is maniJbslllJ uexatLarLs and uithout any meit, and does not disclose ct ight to sue, the court would be justijled in exercisinq th.e pouter tutder Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Placing reliance ort Saleern. Bhai u. State of Maharashtra, it uas held thot the potL;er tutd.er Orrier VII RuLe Ll CPC may be exercis<:ct l_tg the Cotul ut ana stage of the suit, either before registetirtg the pktint or after issuing summons to the defertTa.nt, or before conclusion of the tial. (E:mphasis added) 4L. In another Judgment, while deating with the maintainability of application under Ordi:r VII, l{ule- 1 1 CPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Da.hiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalganji Bhq.nus Ali (Gajra) Dead, through LRs and others,e, it was helC that powers under Order-7, Rule-11 CPC may be ex(lrcised by the Court at arr.y stage of the suit. 'lhe relevallt portion of the said Judgment is extracted as under: "23.14. The pou.ter under Order-7, Rule 1 1 CpC nay be exercised bg the courl at anlJ stage of the :;uit, e.it.her beJbre ' iu ozol r scc :06 2,1 lA No 2 or 2025 I SK.J P No 16 of 2024 /! to the registering the plain| or after issuing summons by this clefendant, or before conclusion of tLe trial, as hetd Cotnl in the Judgment of Saleem Bhai Vs' State of Maharashtro. The pleo that once issues ore fromed' the matter must necessaily go to trial was repelled by this Cowl in Azhar Hussain cose" (E'rrrPho,sis 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 iearned Counsel for petitioner/respond.ent No'1 squarely apply to the facts of the Instant Interlocutory Application and the same are extracted as under: ln Karim uddin Barbhuiga Vs.Anirnul Haque Lrrskcr q.nd others (s-uPrq I/, the FIon'bIe Supreme Court held as under: '27. 1l ls al-so pertinent to note c this jutlcture that a charge of "C.ot'tupt practice" is e(1sA to leuel but diflicrtlL to proue becantse it is in the ft;tu;e of ciminal charge and hcLs got to be proued begond doubt' The standqid of proof required for establishirLg a charge of "ComtPt proctice" is the-sime as is applicable to a crimital charge Therefore' Section 83(1)(b) mand.ates that wlrcn the alLegatiort of 'Corrupt prqctice" I t \ 34 lA No:or i.025 I SKJ P No r6 ot 2c?.1 Lr is macle, tlTe Eleciion petition sLlall set fofth ft il partrculo,rs o,f rc cottupt practice ttTtt rc Etection petitionei a)Le;;s, i"i,"or", ns ft.ttt a stotemant os ltosstble ot the. names ,f p;,1i;. 'i,)iio*, to ttuL,t. i.r^I,!,.,!:! *:,, corrupr'proctice an.d the.iri, .)i,t,,,r"e <tf tte ('ommtsston of eaclL such n-mclice. .l,he.plea;*g, ;,,,,; oileqolion ol corrupt practrcc haue ro I)., -.-. ,-., to tlr_ unarnbrquous tuhetttier t; ,r-;i;:",?";;,1;"or:iri;,,::: .,y:;:!:.,:,,,,,,:, pacticcs as statect iu Scction t 2J of the ai'ti ii.,, )olrpt prr.ri,.. i,, the laturu oI undue inlhtence, ti" pt"i.i,igr' ,n. Jj,l, yaniculars uirh rcgnrd rc the dircct or'fnair",ii"i,rti,"ri","ii t o i n t e t fe re b a t h" c a n d i ct o t e.. u., i t n. t ne j)ei :, :: :i :,2: i,Xyr:;"i'',:|"::,,Yi'i:::)''' ot the A'J' *)'",',1.1'/,,i0, t,r e u1,to no*" tn" op)!uZ',',' i'it,'i,'ll,i* pteadinss of the Ett''\';"n pptttiotr us to "^.,"i," ij ,,1, ;,i;:;;;;'l;;i'":,:!To:::",,i,:,,r,t,,f,,a w -, " tlttder Sectton 1 23(2) oJ the ict. ,,,,,,i,,i!,,o," iir: r,',..' .,i,,i,,1' ,tegarrl " 'o7;.t:",1;,'i;s::n";"i:;:::::nect in ctause (d) or sr,::tutn 1oo(1) oi utc AppellanLt ,""*'i."'irr.lri.'r,i!f! .acceptance of the trcninatt" ,j th" a'Licti.on petrtto'n' ",'iZ*n",i,''riJ',""i,irit"'i!'2,!!riJ:,": ,, ::T:i X ii: y:: ;':;:,',,"";' n [' XffLf*,,,"' " s mai e riatts orr' "''' i' l,t i,',1,,,, p., ""a1, s."t_7,,;;i;i;;i)':;i;:; ;:, ".,, con-stitute,, .ou". or ctciio,t 1-houclh t1 is rrae 11101 uL<, Elcction peti.tioner is not r,r,tttred to slot" os lo how cotntpt practicc hod ,i"u tt oJ tlt,. g::::::'',9:;ri,*:::,:,:;.x-:o",:,v.,oitJJintiJ,'',i2,'",*ront,r tf electro,L ,tas maLenallg offecLed bu i^rrrni)- ?- -':oy 'n" ^result ''" "e t'ttPtttPer occeplance of the t o ttrnatio,t fonn oll ttp 4ppoileli.:. In Ko.rikho Krt Vs- Nune Taguqng (st.pr.a 2), .materiallg o11.ctea )i.,) - . the Honble Supreme Court held as under:

40. Lleuing considered the i: d e [e. t i n )i t o ; ;;i ;;,; ; ; ; ;',:;' ; !!;; ; li : ;{ r' iZ fL ; Z, # : ; :: : I cnar.tcter as to rcnd?r ils clcceplance intpro-pe, ord ,,,,"1) ,o". u,oua hauc io rurn ort its orun inaiiaurr ya.L,-i;;";;: ;:,,:,,,", ospecr rs cortcerned. The case tct u.t on the subjict also ^ir,6";;; t,t.."rt rn," cnurt has qtLua!ts drawn a distirtcrion betiue", nrn_;l;;i;:,,:, jI sut,,ro,,riot rssues as opposed to insubstantiot is""*, ;;;';;;;,,,r.oi,r^ru", ou. condidcttu re or the rcsult of an clection. " The |ery fact tt@t Section .. Retumtng ()ffice r tot **n,^:u:n!^!,:h" Act of lssl speohs ,tf rhe no.mt.nulton unless he ;.. o'tlp oi;nron thot the deft,cr ,- ^r'., ^..i.4 natu're den'on:t.tt"s that tttts ;:":'::tiot mtnd ond there s to obsotut,. tnqndute ,,,r, ., "li"irin"iir:fP"n ';';;;'";;'" impact, woutd ""*i,,",,"rf ili,ii,ii, ,:":"!;:::i:f,{",i,,,,7Jr#,rl,,,Xi! ';';!"'i I I l 35 sh.J lA No 2 Jt 2025 rTLPNo 160r2024 S therebA ntateiotlg effecting the result of the elect[ott or atnoutting to 'undue inJluence' so as to qualifg as a corrupt prQ.ctice.

41. The decision of this Court in Kisan Shankar Kathore (supra| a'tso demonstrates this pinciple, as this Court undertook examirtation of seueral individual defects in the nomtnatbn of tlae retunled candidqte and found that some of them uere actuallA insubstontisl tn charocter. This Court noted that tuo facets required consideratiott Whether tlLere is substantial compliance in disclosing requistte [nfomtatiort m the a,ffdauits filed along uith the nomination and whether non-disclosure of information on identif.ed aspects materiallg affected the resu[t of the election. This Court obserued, on facts, thqt non-disclosure of the electricitg dues in that cqse u)as not a seious lapse, despite the fact that there were dues outstanding, as there uas a bonafide dispute abortt the same. Simllar uas the observqtion in relqtion to non discLosure of murttcipaL dues, where there was a genuine dispute as to re-ualuatiorr and re' assessmentjfor the purpose of tox assessmenr. Earlier. in Sqmbhu Prasad Shq.'7r.a us. Charondas Mqlrantte, this Coutl obserued that the fonn of the nominQtion paper is trct consideted sqcrosanct and uhat is to be seen is uthether there is subst<trtiaL compliance uith the requirement as to fofin and e,uery deporture frottl the prescribed fomat canno| therefore, be made a groutld for the rejectton of the nomination poper. In Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A.Santha Kumar (supra 51, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under: "28. lhc legul position enunciated in albre-sloted cases tttLt.r be:utnnted up as L Section 83(l)(t1) of RP Act, 1951 manddles thtlt dn Electi<)n [)etition shol/ contttn a concise stolemenl of materalfocts on which the petilioner rcltas U nlolctiol focts ore not stuted in an Eleclion pelition, the sdme is liable to be clisnissetl on that ground alone, as the case would be covered b1, Clause (o) ofRule I I cy/Order 1 o./ the Cotle ii. The material facts must be such Jacts cts ncnld aJlord o basis lor tlrc dllegutions modc in the petition and would constitute tlle cat$e of dction, lhal is 6erf lAd $ hich it tuould be necessary for the plqinttlilpetitioner to prove, I trat,ersed ur ctrder to support his ri1ht to lhe judgment of court. Omission of o single natcriul .fctct would lead to an incomplete cause ofdclion and the slqlement oJ plaint tould beconte hod. iii Material facts nrcan lhe entire bundle of facls vthich v,o d conslitutc .t .or plete cduse of aclion. i4dteridl fdcts ttotld include positive .\tulcnenl of rtrb ds ulst) positi|e overmenl ofq negative lacL if'necessarl- I I JT, lA.No I 12125 f SKJ P No 16 0f 2024 ,,ts,void iv In or.ler to gel at7 election decla.t,.e:l untlcr Sectiott tl)t)r l)rtt)(iv) o/ the Rp .1c1, the Llecton per ioner SK .r te t.A No.J o/ 20ll iri"ri i t, iii: ry 2024 ntu.;t ot'ct thdt.,tl Ll.count of non,c()moliance,witlt in" pr.r," ilri io, u, c1 thL l.t ,,t.at.. rules,,r ,rJers rttotle tmtler the )clt,, rtr";;r,;;,,,,:'t';ri,;';:ri., it s./ttr us it concerned thc rerurned c.antlidate, .,tds t.tteridlb, aJfect(.Li v 'lhe Elcction petiti)n is /t scri.)t.ts ma et_and tt cdnnot bt. ttelte.l lightll,ot in a .fdtciJ l ntanner not. is it giNatl to q person who uses it ni ,"rr,i,rw ti An [,],:ction petitioh c(]t1 be .strm:narily disnissetl on tlt(, t)Drission o/.a .rifigle ,l,.ll1l.,,lL, ,!il leottins ro dn incomptete ,rr,r" .7 r",i.n,' ,,'";:^::i;;' ,. contain .t canc$e stqtetnent oJ naterial facts on y,hich t,hi pctitaner ,,t,:r, ji, ,.rtntrtirnirg o cott.\c t'J ,tt.ltou. ttt -lierci\t- ,l tl,. n6rypr5 urrfu ilau',, 1'o) ,',,, i,,i,i,) ,,, Or.fu I , r 'lC rea,ltith the n,on,lot,,ry r"q,,ir"r,.nt, enloined hyScctit,,,.t3 o.l_thc Rl,)t!_ "1',n,,'toi.,.rtin,t i)liik"p, " 3-1. A eluborqteb tliscus\eJ L.ntlttt., Stetrctn g3(l)(a) oJ N) ,t(t mattdarcs tha! on Election t)etition shull con,r,tin o "orr,r" ,;;,L;;;,'lf iro,""iut rttcts on tt,tich patitiofier relrcs. and u,hich Jdct., cotl\tin c a ,or,r" i1 o"r,r, \ttch facls |,ould ittcludc positire staten*!t1t ttf -t1c.g I ,trr- p;;;;;;""r*iir,"r, oJ n(!g.ttite ldcl omrssion rI t .s,tgutar ficr o.i,td teatt to ,rr;;;i;,"- ,,i tctto, So .,ritr us rtr . pte\ent petttion ts (atlcernetl, ";,;;;' is no ar,ermenr made ;s t<) ltot| theT_p _o_, ,u,, c.ntpliana'\ith propisnns of the Con'tinrtiotn or'"r ii")i"., -lhere ./ tjre Rtrle.s or ()rr,:r otode thett,under ond os to'hor,sr,"n.ron_rlo.pilo,r"r"'hid"u,uto,ir _, a/Jicte{t the re.;ult o/ the clection. so os t.o.)tu.act the grorni uua", S"l"tio, l0A(l)lct)(iv) oi thc Rp,-1.ct J,,r ,Llnldt.rtu in')'i^i.uiir, ,o ,,u," such vital ot1.l hdstL /.|c',t.\ h,.tv rcnJertd the petition rictbre ,, on ai"ii.rr"i unrer ortler I/Ir, Rure I t(a) C.p(. read vith Section i:(7@1 ,f th" R" ;;,-i;;.;':"? the election t" t"'i"ii 43' The Jr-rdgment reried on by the rearnecr counsel for respondent No. 1/Election peti._ioner in V.Achuthanandan Vs. p.J.Francis a.nI cLnother (supra 6) not apply to the facts of the case, as the facts in the said case pertaining to the recounting oi_ votes and facts in the instant case is with regard to Nor. _clisclosure of assets, Non-disciosure of income, misrepresentation qualifications and educational .7'7 ( E P No 16 or 2024 tA No 2 0r 2025 I 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 Reddg Vs. P.neeradha Reddg (supra 7)' and this Court while disposing of the instant interlocutory application has taken into averments made in the Blection Petition and the documents filed by the Election Petitioner by following the said .Iudgment'

45. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ajmera Shgam Vs. Koaq Laxmi antd otherslo, u'ith regard to non-disclosure of assets and misrepresentation of educational qualification, held as follows: *9.10.6 tlnder the circum-stances, once the people haue spoken' their mind bg casting their uotes through tlrc ballot box ancl reposed their confidence in the elected candidate, uheneuer the issue of inualidating tLrc people's mandate is raised before the court, the court must be uery careful and ciranmspect' A fine balance must be struck betueen holding free and foir election- ulhich inuoLues the fundamental ight of uoters to ha.ue information about the candidotes- and maintainlng the sanctitA of tLrc mand.ate of the uoters upon the declaration of the 10 2025 scc onLine sc 1723 \ t 38 tAr. a.2o2,,fur",."X.; J result. After afi, eLectiol resurt is the emboa'ir.tent of the u r oJ the people expressed. through the exercise o.l. tke constttution.al right of the people to uote. The court, therefore, must keep in rnintl th.cLt tTectaing an eLectiort uoid sotelg for non_d.isclosure of o:;srzts, iJ. it tack-s sttbstantialitg, could urtdennine the ualid.itlt Ltf the popular mandate. To nullifg the choice of the people on a rninor technicaLitg and insigntficant non_efisclosure rrf c.ssets by the elected candidate, toould Itaue serious repet cu sstons on the democratic process. Thus, wh.ile the cottrt plags a uital rok: in.upholcting the n e of lc:ut, utmost care nust be taken to ensure that election results are not inualirlated basecl on sttbjec.ti,,e intery)retatiot: anrcl ni.nor or technical irreguraities that do trct substantictrlg impinge on the latu. sinae untuarranted interJbrence uith the electoral process and. ouertumtng election re::;u!.ts can erotje public tr-ust in rjemocratic institutions- 9,7O.Z uncler such clrcumstances, nuliif /itlg the eLection result and oueftuming the people,s uerdict thrL.tL.qrt cord, crinicar legal analysLs ancl tools shoulcl be auoid.ecl, urtk:ss the electora.l process has been uitialetl b A gross irregularities that unclennine electoral itt tegit g. Courtroo m interuentions shctulcl only l-tappen tuhen there are clear ancl blatant utolations af the luw that threaten fairness, legalttg, and constitutionctl pin -:ltles

9.1O,8 Minor procedural errors or 1tt.:relg technical objection s of tnconsequentictl tlature thus, shoulcl ,tot be allouted to ouentde the mandate of the electorate. C)ourt:; rrtu.st l:te careful not to beconre tooLs that undennine the popular ma.nclate in the nanre of techn.ico.l perfection. The tuill of the pecple, expressed. through tl,Le election result, should be respectecl- L nle.ss lt h.ts been corntpted b!/ fraudurerLt practices, in tuhictt ..,se, the court should interuene utithout hesitation. A jud.icial tttctory basecl. on technicalities ratLrcr than the electoral uictor-u ruon in the 39 lA No 2 0f 2025 4 SKJ E P No 16 of 2o2{ ,| electoral battlefietd shoutd be ouoided, unless the mandote and the integitA of the electorat process are compromised by fraud or cotrupt practices. Xxxx

17.7 Judicial lnteruention in election disputes concerning disclosure of information, as discussed aboue, tuas prompted bg the quest for saniti-z,ing the electoral process by eliminating poLtuting elements bg making candidotes' criminal antecedents pubtic. Aiming to preuent criminals from participating in elections to maintoin puity of the electoral process - essential for the proper functioruing of partiamentory democracg - the court uas compelled to exercise its extraordinctry polDer to issue specific directions. Consequentlg, not onlA disclosure of cimina| antecedents, but also retated obligations to disclose assels, tiabilities, and. ed-ucationat qualiftcations of election condldates became manclatory. The knou.ttedge of the criminal antecedents ' assets and educationaL quolificatiotts of the condidotes bg uoters certainlg inuigorates the electorol process' uhich is ensured bg obligatory disclosure bg the condidate. Hotueuer, the Courl has made a subtte distinction betuteen non-disclosure of ciminal onteced ents and that of assets and educational qualiJications' WhiLe clisclosure of ciminot antecedents in the electoral process was the most citical element to' maintain the puitg of the electorat process u,thich has to be scrupulouslg adhered to, ribclosure of assefs and educational qualifications were considered. as attendinq supplementaru requirements to strengthen the eleclorol process, of uthich there utill be certain scope for consideration as to uhether it is of substantial or inco ns equential nature. ln tlrc tigltt of the aboue, tlis disclosure requirement as far as asser-s and ed'ucational quatification is concerned, should not be unreosonoblg stretched to inuo[idate on othentise ualidlu I t ; 40 1No 2 ot2025 SKJ rrNo 16 ot2O2a declared election ouer minc technicaL non'c:tntpliances thut are not of substentiot .noro.l, nttLriJicationof the peopte,s:":::r.:,n'"'o 'tctt be the basis for (Etnplrctsis a<ldecl)

46. The above Judgment of the Horr,ble Supreme Court of Indier scltrarely appl.y to the facl s of the instant case. Mere allegation that the petitioncr/respondent No.1 not cjisciosecj his movable an<] immovabie properties, clifference in mentiorring his eclucational qualifications without any substantive doc:uments this Court car-rnot proceed further in the Ekrc tion pefilion as the same not constitutc the cauSe rtf action lbr filing Election petition and thc same has to be rcjected. 47. The Election petition zrnd thc documents fiiecl along with the Election petition are balcl and vague allegations without stating the material facts in suppor.t thereof as required uncler. Section il3 (i) (a) ancl 100 of the Act, 1951 and there is no triable issue vr.ith regard to the aiiegcd malpractices basing on the averments and documents fiied by thr: il.lcction I 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 hndings, the respondent No. i / trlection petitioner failed to set out grounds as contemplated under Section 100 and the requirements of Section 81 and g3 of the Act, 1951, the instant Interlocutory Petition fi1ed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 is liable to be allowed and the Election petition filed by the respondent No.1/Election petitioner is liabre to be rejected under Rule- I 1 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 Miscellaneous petitions pending if any in the Election Petition qh.Aj.l _tand qlqqed. ,.1:-1 SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR l One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Sarath (For His Lordship kind Perusal) //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, . The Secretary, Telangana State Legislative Assembly, Legislative Assembly 1 Building, Nampally, Hyderabq4. (By S_pecial M.esqqnged_ _

2. 11 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia lVlinistry of Law Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

4. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at HyderabaJ

5. One CC to Sri N Naveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. Aruva Raghuram lvlahadev, Advocete IOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies DL/PSL JH- I ii'L Si4; t.) .l: .-r !:.: O '..) 1 I rlill 20?5 * .i-, t t HIGH COURT DATED:10/10/2025 \ T ORDER LA. NO. 2 ot 2025 ln/And EP.No.16 of 2024 LA. NO. 20F 2025 AND E.P. NO. 16 OF 2024IS ALLOWED \o( \0 \