Nandu Lal Agarwal v. 1. Kunamneni Sambasiva Rao

Order

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN ELECTION PETITION No.3 OF 2024 ORDER: Heard Mr. Ramesh Kuthumbaka, leamed counsel for Election Petitioner, Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr' Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for respondent No.l, Mr' K' Durga Prasad, leamed counsel representing Mr. Ramesh Katikineni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 16, Mr. Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. None appears for respondent No.15.

2. The Election Petitioner filed the present Election Petition under Section - 8l read with 100, 101 and 125-4 ol the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and Rule - 3 of the Rules to Regulate the trial of Election Petitions under the Representation of Peoples Act, 195 1 , seeking the following reliefs: i. to declare the election of Respondent No.l as Retumed Candidate for 117 - Kothagudem Assembly Constitucncy, Telangana State as null and void under Section - 100(l)(d)(iv) of Representation of Peoples Act, 195I as respondent No'l failed to cornply Fonn-26 Affidavit prescribed by Rule - 4,A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 2 KI ,] F.f' No.l of2024 tV to ,le,:i rr c respondent No.2 as Rehrmed CaL did:rr: ior I 17 - Kot raq.rr r Ln Assernbly Constituency, Bhadlla.rlri - K rthagudem Dislrict ',rlangana State, undcr Section - I0l rt:rd rr.itti 98 (c) and 84 c1'l{' .\,:t. 1951 witheffect fron04.12.2023 to rrrrc.,r rurprisonrncnt and penalty under Secti.ln . 2: ,\ (iii) of thc i.f' \; . 195 I against respondent No.1 under Sec ion 99 ofRp 5 I 1br his lailure to furnish the rec1.rir,:.1 ir lorrnation, Act. ( conr:-'ir1r r r the matcrial infonnation and for gi,.,rng: I,rls : For-rn-26 affirlr, i, Lrti:d 08.1 1.2023, which is prescribed by R.rl.. - 4A of the Conlluc:. r 1 llectionRules 1961. to cor,r )r r ri,3x1s thg decision of this Court in this tna'rcr to the Eleclior -,:rnmission of India and the Speaker. o1' tlrc l'elangana Leg ri.rt ire Assernbly in tenns of Section - 103 of tlrr: l{P Act.t95l. lo (lt.r t ,. \r i ol'll)e petitioll.

3. '[ rt election petitioner has filed thit i lt:ct on petition contendinlr,rs ] rllrrws: i) lt. he residcnt of Kothagudem Town ivl-,ic I r or.r.rcs under I l7-Kolheiiru c r:. .\ssembly Constituency. His Aadhar (-arrL Number is 1115 6615 ll6,' and Votcr ID Number is KYT 1505:02: ii) j i,,, i\lerno No.4004/Elecs.DlAl12023-1. drted 09.t0.2023 Comrlissiorr r. arld Gazetrrr N' r.t llcation No.37. dated 03.11.2023 issuctl bv thc l:lection - India (for short 'ECI'), the foll,trvin,: ;chedule of elections .r,as r L,'clared to elect the Members to the f,:la igana State 3 KL,J EP No.3 of2024 Legislative Assembly-2023 for total 119 Assembly constituencies in Single Phase including I 17-Kothagudem Assembly Constituency' a) Date to file the nominations b) Scrutiny of nomination PaPers c) Polling Date d) Counting and declaration of result : 03.11.2023 to 10.11.2023 : 13.11.2023 : 30.11.2023 : 03.12.2023 iii)RespondentNo.lcontestedinthesaidelectionasacandidate set up by the Communist Party of India (CPI), while respondent No 2 contested as a candidate set up by the All India Forward Bloc Party'' Aparl from them,28 other candidates also contested in the said election forthePostofMLAtollT-KothagudemAssemblyConstituency (hereinafter referred to as 'subject Constituency')' iv) The petitioner cast his vote in the said election conducted on o3.l2.2o23forthesubjectconstituency.Resultsweredeclaredand respondent No.l was declared as 'Returned candidate' for the subject constituency,andGazetteNotificationNo.44,dated04.|2.2023wasalso issued to that effect. v) Respondent No.1 stood in the first ptace while respondent No'2 stood in the second place among others by securing the following votes: Candidate Res ondent No.1 Res ondent No.2 Votes secured 80,336 53,789 -T 4 KL.J EP No.l] o12024 vi) :\s 1-e rRule-4,{o1 theConductof Electionlrr-rl :s, l96l (for shorl 'Rulrrr;, ')ri)'), contesting candidate must file For:,.n-2(, ]n the fonn of an alli:.t', r along with nomination papers bc,tbr: th: Returning Officer.

vii) [:ir;'lr, Form-26 affidavit dated 08.11 20ll3 srbmttted by rcspondcn, \ r I ,vas notarized by Mr. Mendu Rajam;rllu, Il.A., B.L., Advocatc ol .i trhagudem with Notary Registration No.ii20. T,he said notaly is .(-.1 u c()trpetent person lo practice as a No ary in tcrms ol Section - !) i l rh,-' \6131i., Act, 1952 as he did nol pos.iess a valid ceftitrcatc.1 rrr.:licc as on the date of Notary. In vicu.of t,re same, the affidavit oI r-e"1 r,,dcnt No.1 does not amount to be a srvor n r ftlclavit and thercby h(, hi: ij()t complied with Rule - 4,A of the Ruk,s, 1961, to contest th.' clrcrirn. Thus, the declaration of ti:sIrr.rr Lde nt No.1 as Returned (ltLr.r r iate is liable to be set aside. viii ) i :,- r nrlly, respondent No. 1 intentionallv supirr.c ssed by not disclosing tr.c ,tirntc of his wife in Form-26 affidavit .,,rhi,:h not only arnounts t() rr o f-fencc punishable under Sectio r l2 5,{ of the Representatior cl' Peoples Act, 1951 (for short ,[tp Act ), but also amounts to rL,}t-:ornpliance of Rule - 44 of the Rules, 196 t. 5 KI-,J EP No.3 of2024

4. Respondent No.l filed counter denying the averments made in the election petition contending as follows: i) The prayer sought by the election petitioner is in contravention to the provisions of Sections - 8 1 and 84 of the RP Act. ii) The certificate of practice of Mr. Mendu Rajamallu was renewed by the competent authority vide proceedrngs No.C&IG (R&S) Endt.No.NR/653120241Kl/M-9, dated 22.01 .2024 for a period w.e.f. 01 .07.2021 up to 06.07.2026. In view of the same, the result of the election of respondent No.l would not materially be affected, nor would it attract non-compliance of Rules, 1961. iii) The election petition was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 45 days from the date of election ol the returned candidate. The result of subject constituency was declared on

03.12.2023. The election petition ought to have been filed on or before l7 .01.2024, whereas the present election petition was filed on

20.01 .2024 with a delay of three (03) days. Since the RP Act being a Special Enactment and the election petition being a statutory remedy, there cannot be condonation ofany delay. iv) With regard to non-disclosure of name of wife of respondent No.l in Form-26 affidavit, Form-26 under Rule - 4(a) of the Rules, 1961 6 KL,J EP No 3 of2024 does not p'r:'sc'[',e the narne of the spouse. In the absence of any column seeking th r: r ii rr e of spouse, the contention of eier:tio:t pc,titioner that non-rlenti,rnirrr Lhe name of wife of respondent No,1 r,,,r,ulrl arnount to non-comp)iirn,. r ct'l{ule - 4 (a) of the Rules, 1961 is rrntentble

5. [tc:,p rnrlent No.2 filed written statement admitti rg the legal position arrl lrrr,, as stated in the election petition. He llrrrhe r contended that he also ltlr.t:sTed for the post of MLA to the subiect c()nr.tituency.

6. ( ) rrlu'ial of plcadings and hearing on both si,Jer.,, 11-t1r aorn framed the lirllr. r,ing issues for trial: IU lv. Whcrhel trc petitioner being a voter is entitlerl to file an Election Peti r,rr r,,'ithout filing the objections durirrg rhc scrutiny of norriua i,r rs before the Returning Officer? Whr:,1.c r' lre election pctition is filed within thc lirrrilat-on period? Whc. rt r thc' election petitioner has complie<r rr,rth t tc statutory recluir-,:rn r rts under Representation of Peoples ,\c , 1951 for maintiri' ri ntr the election petition? Wht:- 'r r h,: declaration of the Respondent 1\tr t. I as returned cantl -ii,ir s valid without valid nomination / Fornr 26 rLffidavit? Whr,'-.,c r non rnentionir-rg of the name of the .,vi1i: tf Respondent No irr lris Forrn-26 Affidavit dated 08.1 .2021 arnounts to supl,r..\.'i rn of material information or no rL-d isc lor.ure of the matci'ial particulars in Form- 26 Affidavit subrnilted by the Reslrcnrii r t No. I, before the Returning Ofhceil 7 KL,J EP No.l o12024 vi. Whether the nomination filed by the Respondent No'1 is substantially defective in terms of the Section - 36 of R'P' Act' 1951? vii.WhethertheReturningofficerhasconductedthescrutinyof nominations in terms of the Section - 36 of the R'P' Act l95l'/ viii. Whether there is any cause of action for the Election Petitioner to file the Present Election Petition? ix. Whether the election of respondent No'l, from 1l7-Kothagudem AssemblyConstituency,isliabletobesetasideasnullandvoid? x. whether respon<lent No.2 is entitled to be declared as duly elected Returned Candidate from 1l7-Kothagudem Assembly Constituency, Telangana State, as he secured next highest votes in the Election? xi.WhetherrespondentNo.lisliableforpunishmentunderSection- l25A(iii)readwithggofR.P.Actlg5lforhisfailuretofumish the required information, concealing the material information and for giving false Form-26, afhdavit dated 08 1 I '2023 ' xii. To What relief?

1. Vide ordet dated 26'12'2024, this Court appointed Mr' K' Sudharshan. retired District Judge as Commissioner to record the evidence of Parties.

8. Before the Commissioner, PWs' 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.Pl to 14 and Exs.Xl andX2 (a) to x5 (b) were marked on behalf of 8 Kt,,J EI'No.3 of2024 election ll.1rt () lel, whereas RW.1 was e{amined on beha f r f respondent No. l and r: r : . [{ 1 to R9 were marked. Howeve r, -esp,)nclent No.2 reported no :, i lence

9. lv I - F.amesh Kuthuntbaka, leamed counr;el or Election Pctitione r. cllrt ll(led as follows: Rcsp-,r',1t"rt No.1 - Returned Candidate did n,:t disctose his wife,s nall l,l 1i I rorur 26. Therefore, there is deliberar.e r;,rppr:ssion of his wifc'- 'i rnc'by respondent No.[. The same is ir .,iolation of the princ 1ri,: laid do'"vn by the Apex Courl and this Court . Knc.,,,ir r: intbnnation about the candidate is parl arrd parcel of Artic ,: I () ( t ) of the Constitution of India. Thus. u:: pondent No.l failed to disclose hil; rviie,s name and, ther:lir,: tt atnounts to undue influence in tcr-urs of tho provisions of t I r,: Iii fr ,\,:t. 1V. Des rile rarsLng an objection by respondent \Jo.- rn 13.11.2023 with t cr it ', I Io the sarne, the Retuming Offlcer Ci<[ n ct :onsider the saitl rt:1:rr:,:r . Thc Jl r:r u Lring Officer rejected the objections r.,lised b1 respondent No.l. ..r rt r regard to non-disclosure of respcndt:nt 1.,,1o.1's wife nam,l ll, r:sltondent No.1. Therefore, the elt:cti,rrr i ; materially 9 KL.J EP No 3 of2024 affected. The Returning Officer ought to have rej ected the nomination of respondent No.1 . vt. Disclosure of names of wife and dependants,, if any, by any candidate contesting in election is mandatory. In the present case, respondent No.1 failed to disclose his wife's name in the affidavit filed in Form 26 filed by the Returned Candidate along with nomination in terms of Rule - 4,{ of the Rules, 1961. Therefore, the election of respondent No. I is materially affected. vlr. Thus, the nomination filed by respondent No.1 is substantially defective in terms of Section - 36 of the RP Act. The Retuming Officer did not conduct scrutiny of 'nomination of respondent No.l in terms of Section - 36 of the RP Act. lx. Mr. Mendu Rajamallu, Advociite, who notarizdd the affidavit of respondent No. t in Form 26 filed along with nomination, is not competent to notarize the affrdavit as on the said date i.e.,

08.11.2023. Therefore, the affidavit filed by respondent No.l in Form 26 along with the nomination does not amount to swom affidavit. Thus, there is violation of Rule - 4,A of the Rules, 1961' x He has placed reliance on the principle laid down in the following decisions: 10 KL.] EP No.l of2024 a) (lhan Jra Singh Gour v. Shri Rahul Singtt Lodhi b) Ilarr lih:rnker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh2 c) [(isun Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatra.v Sarvants d) l,l1s, l,rrrana and Company v. State of Chhattisgrrrha e) li:rtio ral Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Seema Ma lhof ras f) lir:rr lnclia Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Mandar Madha v Tambe6 g) Oritntal lnsurance Co.Ltd. v. Felix Corr',-'a h) I'ubli,: Interest Foundation v. Union of [ntlia8 i) tkrsur gence lndia v. Election Commissiorre j) S,imhrrdri Satya Narayana Rao v. M. Burlda P"asadr(' k) S,urr'shchandra Bhandari r,. Ncena Vikram Vtrrrarl l) I)rrrqrr Shanka Mehata v. Raghuraj12 m)Iloulinr Shokhopao Mate v. Lorho S. Pfo;zerl n) tirish namoorthy v. Sivakumarla o) Lok Irahari v. Union of Indiars p) l,lairr ntbam Prithviraj v. Pukhrem Shar:rtchanrlra Singh16 q) l,topu ragundu Thippesrvamy v. K. Erann'a 17 L. I1.P. No.5 ol li 1 r- I :crJcd on 09.1 1.2022 by Madhya Pradesh High Cr,rrrt t. llolrry I scl t!: '. AIR 2024 s - .tr ,,r o. IVPCNo.-:6:lo l) I dccidedon04.l0.20lgbyChhatrisgarhHighCcrrrtarliiia prrr '. AIR 2oot s tt ,. ". (1996) 2 scl :2 . '. (zoo:) to s, t::,. '. :ot8 rNS( tr- o. etR 20l+ s. t,t . 11a9.{)Srrppl II)\:( 1.lq r'. E.P.No.llrl,l,1 'lr rd.'\lon20.11.2017byllighCourtofM.p.atIndc,r(-Bercr 't AIR 1954 s- :2 r 't. EP.No.lo[,]l() (,rcrdcd on 21.0g.2022 byHighCourtof Madpurar lnrl)rra 'o oro ro,, ,, ,,,., 't. (2018) 4 st , 5' ; '0. 12017;2 scl .,8 ; ''. 20t912yat.t, -s r.r 11 KL,J EP No 3 of2024 r) Mayanglambam Rameshwar Singh v' Yengkhom Surchandra l8 s) S. Rukmini Madegowda v. State Election Commissionre t) Yumkham Erabot Singh v. Okram Henry Singh20 u) Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy v. Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy2r v) Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commanchen (dead) by LRs'22 w) Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v' State of Mahara shtra 23 x) Commissioner of lncome Tax v. Vatika Township Private Limited2a y) District Collector, Veltore District v. K' Govindaraj2s z) Interplay Bctween Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, IN Rtr26 aa) bb) cc) dd) ee) Mannalal Jain v. State of Assam2T Kumar Gorakhnath Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra2s Mary Pushpam v. Telvi CurusumarY'e National Insurance Company Limited v' Pranay Sethi3o Pradip Chandra Parija v- Pramod Chandra Patnaik3r tt. 2020 t.ar"S,rit lManiPur) 67 'n. NR 2022 sc 4Jq7 20. 2o2l Lawsuit (Manrpur) 43 ''. E.P.No.l of2017, decided on 1407.2023byA'P High Court 22. (zon) z scc azg ". 12oos) z scc 6ll 'z^. (zots) I scc t ". (2016) 4 scc 763 '6. 1zozt1 a scc I 2?. atR tg6z sc :86 ". w.P. No.t t+f+ of 2016, decided on 16 0? 2024 by Bombay High court ". 202+ tNsc 8 t'. (zotl) to scc eso IZ KT,J EIr No.3 of2024 ff) ijtatc of Maharashtra v. Jagannath3z gg) lifat,r (hysugh CBI v. Hemendhra Reddr,''3 xi) \rrth the aforesaid submissions, learned coursel for the election p,rtiti .),t,rr sought to set aside the election o1'resnr,nclent No.l for the subjcct. --. rr stitucncy and to declare respondenr Nr.-:, ,vho secured second hi1ll-c:;' !otes in the subject election as returnt:cl carrdilate. I 0 \\,'lr,:reas, Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, Iearnccl Sen or Counsel rcpresentUt.ll \'l '. Sai Prasen Gundavararn, learned co'-rr1s,.ri lo: respondent No.l. cor-rtt: rdt:,1 as fbllows: i) ,,'i s per the provisions of the Rp Act, the Rule;. 961 and the I a ndbook of the Election Commission ,tl Iurlia r:espondent f . r' . i has to fill all the blanks. Ther.c i: ro need of ti i::losing his wife's name. ii) Fl,r inondent No. I has no dependants. iii) [i ,];nondent No. I has disclosed his wite's )A N Number, cl,.rt lrls of assets and liabilities. There is ro trn.or. in it. i") Ct I r:onsideration of the said aspects oLrly. th,: Retuming O 'ti:er accepted the nomination of -espond,:nt No. I _ t' 1z0oz; t sc r' tt. atR 1989 sc I t'. 1:o::.y I sc R 13 KL,J EP No.l of2024 retumed candidate. Even then, the election petitioner filed the present election petition v) The Election Petitioner is not the Voter of subject constituency and he has not filed any proof to substantiate his contention that he is a voter ofsubject constituency and, therefore, on the said ground itself, the present election petition is liable to be dismissed. vi) As per the contents of the elcction petition, the subject election is not materially afl'ected. vii) The election petitioner failed to plead and prove that the alleged non-disclosure of wife's name by respondent No.1, the subject election is materially affected viii) On consideration of the said aspects only, more particularly, the procedure laid down in the Hand Book of the Election Commission of India, the Returning Offrcer has returned the objections submitted by respondent No.2. ix) Mr. Mendu Rajamallu, Advocate, who notarized the affidavit of respondent No. I in Form 26 filed along with nomination, submitted an application seeking renewal of his notary certificate well within the time as per the Notaries 14 KL-I EP No.l of2024 4,: . 1952 and the Rules made thereundt:r :r i(t tl e sarne was p,. r rling before the competent authority. -hcre21i.r, ,n. C,r rnrissioner and Inspector General of I{i'ei.;tration and S r: n'rps (C & IGRS) has issued renewal c€ir11[c rte "vhich c:l re into force frorn the date of expirat,on o'e rrlier notary c,l.,r ficate. Therefore, there is no enor in it x) Rr';yrondent No.l being the returned c;rndirlatt gol 80336 \ )l€s. whereas respondent No.2 got 53,'8!l r:rtt s and, thus, r, 's londellt No.l gained confidence of the p,:r pl :. Thus, the s.:1ject election cannot be set aside ou vagrLc rllogations. xi) ll: placed reliance on the following decisicrrs a) (ir:n,.'r ll Iilcctric Co. v. Renusagar Power Cr,.-" b) t'arlrrra Sundara Rao v. Statc of Tamil Natlrr 'i c) l)ircc'rrr of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. App,ariro16 d) (-arr:e r Institute Educational Society v. C)m Shrle Thakurji Ilrlu,ri, tional SocietylT e) I'eoyrl :'s Union for Civil Liberties (P[JCL) v, Union of I I t rli,,r I 0 [(.S. I\rttaswamy v. Union of India]e g) t.ok P ra harirs l1 .16 t8 _19 I 5 I987) 4 SC: 2002) 3 SC a 2002) 4 SC: 2021) 16 t(_( t 2003).l sC I )( 2017) t0 s( a 5 15 KL,J EP No.l of2024 h) Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnatakaao i) P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtraat. xii) With the aloresaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel sought to dismiss the election petition. 1 1. Mr. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Mr' Ramesh Katikineni, learned counsel for respondent Nos'2 & 16' contended that respondent No.1 did not disclose his wife's name and he has kept columns blank in the afhdavit llled in Form 26 along with nomination of respondent No.l . Therefore, respondent No'2 has submitted objections on 13.1 1.2023 to the Returning officet with regard to the same. Respondent No.2 also cited the provisions of the RP Act, Rules, 1961 and the principle laid down by the Apex Court' The Returning Officer did not consider the same' Thus, the election of respondent No.1 has to be declared as void and respondent No'2 has to be declared as returned candidate for the subject constituency. Therefore, he sought to set aside the election of respondent No'l and declare respondent No'2 as retumed candidate' no. (zoo3) 6 scc 6gz o'. (zoo:) 6 scc stl 16 KL.] EI' No 3 of2024

12. .\r. ,l scussed above, both Mr. Ramesh K.uthu,nt,aka. learned counsel t,,rr I:rJion Petitioner, Mr. G. Vidya Sagar. lcr med Senior Counsel r:llrr.'\ lrltiug Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, lear.r cd counsel for respondent N l. Mr. K. Durga Prasad, leamed courlse. r(,pr rsenting Mr. Ramesh t.all.ircni, learned counsel for respondent l\os.2 & 16, Mr Ravi Charrcl'r li,:l,.har, learned counsel for respondcnt N,.4, rnade their submissio r:; t,:r cnsively by placing reliance on the aforcsai<l judgments. Though 1s5,11i, 1r l,--1rI No.2 filed written statement did not c ]o )sc to cross- examine tlt: ,r i:ncsses of both side. Respondenr. No..1 rrcither filed wrrtten state ,t r) L lror cross-exarnined the witnesses on b, rth s iclcs

13. !$S.!lE No.l: Whether the petitioner being a rotr:r is cntitled to file an l.l,.,i tion Petition without filing the ob.jecrrcns during the scrutiny ol'n.rr r.rrations befole the Returning Officerl, i) l. r; t1 t: specific contention of the election pct:tion:r.that he is the residert .1 l-.rthagudem and he is staying in the arldrr:ss rrentioned in the electio I l)( .tl o.. He has exercised his franchise in rlre cl,:ctions held to the subj lc. ,.r nstituency during the year 2023 and itlsc r,artiel. Hc has filed Ex.Plr rrs votel identity card, which is alsc ntrrkel as Ex.p6. During cross-t,:i rrnination, he has admitted the said f,tcts. 1'.7 KL,J EP No 3 012024 ii) According to Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, leamed senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 , the petitioner has filed Ex.P 1 1 - voter ID card dated 25.09.2013. He has not filed final voters list of subject constituency for the year 2023. Voters list. will be displayed before election on calling objections etc. The election petitioner failed to file the said voters list and also voter ID of the yeat 2023. Therefore, the present election petition filed by the election petitioner has to be dismissed on the said ground alone. iii) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to note that the election petitioner has filed the present election petition under Sections - 8l read with 100, 101 and l25A of the RP Act and Rule - 3 of the Rules to Regulate the Trial of Election Petitions under RP Act' Section - 81 of the RP Act deals with 'presentation of petitions, the same is relevant and it is extracted as under: "81. Presentation of Petitions. (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (l) of section 100 and section 101 to the High Courl by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days frorn, but not earlier than the date of election of the retumed candidate or if there are l-nore than one l8 KLJ FIP No.l of2024 'll.rrro(l candidate at tlie election and datel; ol ltrei' ,-'k:r: i rn are different, the later of those two rlates. I ;,tiorrutiort.-ln this sub-section. "elector' fiica ts I pe r . r r rvlio was entitled to vote at the elecliotr to '.,'l' i I the election petition relates, whethe r hc ira ; . i' .' I a' suclr election or nol. * "+ I Or.nitted by Act 47 of 1966 t 3 1r,'cry clection petition shall be accom])anitcl b', iii !l:rnv copies thereof as there are rejpond,rnti nt("r ior)ed in thc petition and every such c()p.,/ shal: lrc r tested by the petitioner under his own sigria .ur, : II) )r :l Irue copy of the petition." iv) lilt lj rn - 2 (e) of the RP Act defines 'eleclor'. rnc the same is extracted li r r( or ''2 rt) "clector" in rclation to a constituencv ut€ans;. pe . r'r rvhose narne is cntered in the electoral roll o' lllir- lonstituency for the tirne being in forcer aurl iiho l. r ot sub-ject to any ol the disqualifi<:ltron; nlr"r ioned in section l6 of the Representatr,ln ,rf th,: Pc, 1 lr: \ct, 1950." v) I::.pr :r ratiorl to Section - 81 of the RP Act salr tnat in this sub- section, "ele',:t ,r " rneans a person who was entitled tc vrlte at thc election to u,l.rich tlr,: r:1,:ction petition relates, whether he has vcted at such election or rr,r 19 KL.J EP No 3 of2024 vi) Thus, any elector can file election petition. In the present case, the election petitioner is the voter of the subject constituency and in proof of the same, he has filed voter I.D. Card - Ex.Pl1. Respondent No.1 failed to disprove the same during cross-examination of pW.l, or by, producing any evidence. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.1 that the election petitioner is not the voter of the subject constituency and that the present election petition filed by him is not maintainable is unsustainable. This issue is answered accordingly.

14. ISSUE No.2: Whether the election petition is filed within the limitation period? i) As stated above, Section 8l of the RP Act deals with 'presentation of petitions', and it has to be filed within forly-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later ofthose two dates. In the light ofthe same, it is relevant to note that in the present case, the elections were held on 30.11.2023 and results were declared on 03.12.2023. The election petitioner filed the present election petition on 20.01 .2024 Therefore, forty-five days period from 03.12.2023 is expired by t6.0t.2024. 20 KL,J F-P No.3 ot2024 ii) 1r r' r::levant to note that there was Pon.p'al \racrttion for the Couft frorn 1,' January, 2024 to 19th January, 202'1. l \'i' Ianuary and 14'l' Januar'',' l', iLrg Second Saturday and Sunday respeclivoly, and 15th ancl l6tr' .l Lt'r- ary were declared as holidal r; )lr account of Scmlcranti,,r''r,i.r r'l and Kanmnu respectively. Thcref'rl'r:, the election petitioner fi[ ,1 'he present election petition on the re-lrper'ing day i.e.,

20.01.2024. '- rus, the election petitioner hled the prer'ent election pctition rritl'ir limitation in tenns of Section - 8t c1' he RP Act. 'fhcrefore, th,. :rntcution of learr-rcd Senior Counsel aputar'ng on behalf of lesponilcl r No. 1 that the clection petition is tiur: baned is unsustain rbl,. -.'h is issue is answered accordingly.

15. I:iSUE No.3: Whether the election pelrtion(1 1Las complied with thc )ii:l r ()r',/ requirements under Representation rrl Peoples Act, 1951 lor rrLi r1 rrning the elcction petition? i) -tJr, , lection petitioner has filed the preserrt ele;ti rrt petition in ternrs o1- Ilre iro"'isions of the RP Act, Rules to fLegulatt the Triai of Elcction [',:t: li r:ts under RP Act. It is apt to note that thrrul h respondent No. I cor I r:n, lr tl Lhat the election petitioner has not cornp lied with the statutor), '.-c rr rernents under the provisions of the RP '\cr , to maintain the prese:L elc cIi,]n petition, he failed to make out iln.,/ casl to prove the 21 KL,J EP No.3 o42024 same. Therefore, the said contention of respondent No. I is also unsustainable. This issue is answered accordingly.

16. ISSUE Nos.4 & 7: Whether the declaration of the Respondent No.1 as returned candidate is valid without valid nomination / Form 26 affidavit? and Whether the Retuming Officer has conducted the scrutiny of nominations in terms of the Section - 36 of the R.P. Act 1951? i) Section 33 of the RP Act deals with 'presentation ol nomination paper and requirements fbr a valid nomination. Section 33A refers to 'Right to information' and 33B refers to candidate to furnish information only under the Act and the Rules. They are relevant and the same are extracted as under "33A. Right to information.-( I ) A candidate shall, apaft fiom any infonnation which he is required to furnish, under this Act or the rules tnade thereunder, in his nornination paper delivered under sub-section (l) of section 33, also furnish the infonlation as to whether (i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisorunent for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the courl of competent jurisdiction; (iD he has been convicted of an offence [other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section 22 KL.J EP No.3 of2024 2 cr covercd in sub-section (3), of sectirn fi anl .c ' ' ,c.'d to iurprisonnrent lor onc year or n)or(.' . ) Thc candidate or his proposel ! as the cas,.: tta r 1..,e ; rall. at the tirne of delivering to the reltLr:rin; :,1 rL t r the nornination paper under sub-sectron t 1) cf :c,rt (,11 J3, also deliver to him an affidavit iwc rrt b I ttr.r t andidate in a prescribed fonn verlying th: inl .r rnation specified in sub-section (l). -fhc r J ) returning officer shall, as soon as tna r b: i t ,: the funrishing of inforrnation to hiur u rd,:r ;ub - 'c,'r t,n (l), display the aforesaid inlonr:a1ion br i,1'1 ' rng a copy of the affidavit, delivered rr rd,:r ;ul- sc,.t r,n (2), at a conspicuous place at his oflice 1or th: inI rnation oI the electors relating to a corstitutnc y' lb'vhich thc norninationpaper is delivered' ''ji.i l. Cantlidate to {urnish information ,rnl i' rrrr d e r the Act and the rules. Nohl,it rstan,lin l irr , ,1, ins contained in any judgrnent, decrer' or ordrr ol rrry court or any direction, order or any' ctlirr in;l r clion issued by the Election Cornrnissicn nr ca rr:itlate shall be liable to disclose or fi.r lish an r sr'.1 infbrmation, in respect of his election rvhith rs nt, r:quired to be disclosed or fumished t.ndt'r t.hrs .\.1 c1'the mles made thereunder." ii) I r t t:: present case, respondent No.l has tr ed nomination along with rr(r ru'ized affidavit in Form 26 (Ex.P:i) r-h: same was 23 KL,J EP No 3 of2024 received and accepted by the Returning Officer. It is relevant to note that during scrutiny, respondent No.2 has submitted objections (Ex.p9) stating that respondent No.1 did not disclose his wife's name in the affidavit in Form 26 and,,, therefore, the nomination filed by respondent No.l is liable for rejection. In Ex.P10 - original order,, the Returning Officer stated that he cannot conduct a roving enquiry while conducting scrutiny and he would only see as to whether the candidate filled all the columns and the affidavit is attested properly or not. On consideration of the said aspects only, the Returning Officer has accepted the nomination of respondent No.1. The objections filed by respondent No.2 vde Ex.P9 were retumed by the Returning Officer vide Ex.Pl0 order dated t3.11.2023. iii) In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 36 of the RP Act deals with'scrutinv of nomination'. The same is relevant and extracted hereunder: "36. Scrutiny of nominations. {I) On the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations under section 30, the candidates, their election agents, one proposer of each candidatc, and onc other person duly authorised in writing by each candidate, but no other person, may attend at such time and place as the returning officer may appoint; and the retuming officer shall give them all reasonable 24 KL.J EP No I of2024 lar 1 tres for exarnining the nomination papt:rs ol a J :a rclrrlates which have been delivered within th(: tiotc an I ir .h: m atmcr laid down in section 33. ( I ) The retuming officer shall then cxatnine tl: rr. r alion papers and shall decide all objectlrrns rihicr rn :,. Lre tnadc to any nonrination and may, eitht:r o I :ttc r ohie ;rion or on his own motion, after sucl' sLLllllnal y ir,ilr.u y. if any, as he thinks necessary, lcjc(t ary rx,rr iration on any of the following grounds:- ra I Lhat on the date fixed for 11-t" 5s1lr1i11r t f nominations the candidatc] either is m,l qualilit d or is disqualificd lbr being chosen to llll 'hc sc Lt luudcr any of the fbllowing provisions thirt lrli ','t e applicable, namely:- Articlcs 84, 102, 113 and I91, Part Il of this Act and sections 4 anrl l'l of tl e Govemlnent of Union Teritones Act. 196I ( )0 tf 1963)l; or 1)) that there has beeti a failurc to con.rply rr lth a tv ;f the provisions ofsection 33 or section 3 1: ir ,r) that thc signaturc of thc candidatc or trlc Jtto ros:r on thc nomination paper is not gcnuine (.r t l,othing coutaincd tn clause (b) or clausc (c) )l su )- s.: i:,n (2) shall bc dcemed to authorise the rcictti rtt 11' tl ..' rrornination of any candidate on the grotLt-td o a ty ir :crularity in respect of a nomination paper. il tre crrnlidatc has beer-r duly nominated by means of ll'otte1 n,'r l,nation paper in rcspect of which no irregulalill h,rs b,:e r committed. 25 Kt-J EP No.3 of2024 (4) The retuming officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. (5) Thc retuming officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date appointed in this behalfunder clause (b) ofsection 30 and shall not allow any adjourmnent of the proceedings exccpt when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violencc or by causes bcyond his control: Provided that in casc an objcction is raised by the retuming officor or is madc by any other person the candidate concemed may be allowed time to rebut it not later than the next day but one following the date fixed lor scrutiny, and thc rctuming officer shall record his decision on the date to which the proceedings have been adjoumed. (6) The retuming officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same and, if the nomination paper is rejer:ted, shall record in writing a brief statement ofhis reasons for such rejection. (7) For the purposes of this section, a certified copy of an entry in the electoral roll lor the time being in force of a constituency shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the person refered to in that entry is an elector for that constituency, unless it is proved that he is subject to a disqualification mentioned in section l6 of the Represcntation ofthe People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950). (8) Immediatcly after all the nomination papers have been scrutinised and decisions accepting or rejecting the same have been recorded, the retuming officer shall prepare a list of validly nominated candidates, that is to say, =--r- 26 KI,,J EIrNo.l of2024 ,l n( idatcs u4rose norninations have been lbuntl val 11 ar d ,r1'l it to hrs notice board." ir,) /\. )r'the aforesaid provision, the Retrr:nirg Ofiicer cannot conduct . l ( ' rrg enquily and hc cannot go into l.[re ge n rinetress and coffectncl;i .r ' the information furnished by lhe canrlidate while conductiotr sl .rtirly. The said principle was also laid ,lo r',n by the Apex Court in Re,ir lgence Indiae, Kisan Shankar Ka thortir i .nd Karikho Kri v. Nune' I avanga2. v) in t r,:r light of the above discussion, on ccrlsid( ration of the said aspe i:ts , trh', the Returning Officer accepte(l tlrc n rmination of respondent |^c. t. There is no error in it. It is apt to notd thi t the election petitioncr ilir I r rt trle any objections to the Returnirrg (-)fatc rr stating that responderl l'., .I tailed to frll all the columns and iailetl to disclose his rvif-e's natuc I is respondent No.2, who has filed objtc'ro rs lirle Ex.P9 on the si. i,l :r c,und. The said aspect was conside red b1'thc Retuming Officer arrrl rii::cted the objections submitted by res]rortdr,nt No.2 vide Ex.P 10. f '',r r r:lbre, the election petitioner canr ot c u end that the norninati:,r- l'iler.l by respondent No. I is not valid arrd lhrt hc Returning ot. 2024 S(lt )f r( SC 519 27 KL,J EP No.3 of2024 Offlcer accepted the said invalid nomination. Issue Nos.4 and 7 are accordingly answered

17. ISSUE Nos.S 6&8 : Whether non mentioning of the name of the wife of Respondent No.1 in his Form-26 Afhdavit dated 08.1 1.2023 amounts to suppression of material information or non-disclosure of the material parliculars in Form - 26 Affidavit submitted by the Respondent No.1, before the Returning Officer?; Whether the nomination filed by the Respondent No.l is substantially defective in tems of the Section - 36 of R.P. Act, 1951?; and Whether there is any cause of action for the Election Petitioner to file the present Election Petition? i) As discussed above, the election petitioner filed the present election petition to declare the election of respondent No.1 - retumed candidate as invalid on the following two (02) grounds (a) Respondent No. I did not disclose his wife's name in Ex.P5 affrdavit in Form 26 tTled under Rule - 4.A of the Rules, 1961; and (b)Mr. Mendu Rajamallu, who notarized Ex.P5 affidavit, did not possess a valid certificate as on the date of notary i.e., 08.11.2023. Thus, according to the election petitioner, respondent No. I did not file Form 26 in accordance with the Rules, 1 961 Kl-., irP No.l of2024 ii) Ex.:)i is the alfidavit filed by respondent No I in Irorm 26 in terms of Rule - rA of the Rules, 1961 along with nonrinatior. Column at Serial No.4 ir ,irth regard to details of permanenl a{)cor.lrrt r.nd status of filing ol lno.lr.r l tax return whicli are to be mentiour:d in a .abular form and the sa r() s irs undcr: (.1) Details of D.rlrnarent Account-Number (PAN) and status rf llLing rf lncorne Tax retunl. S.No l, rrr.s PAN I 2 3 4 5 6 Scll DNLPK4OT3E S o ls( DNMPK44878 IILII (il c rndrdatc is Ka1lr (- I Lrce ner) No Par allotted Dept rr lr, r - No Pan allotted DeptrtJr No Pan allottcd DcpclJ.'-,'. i No Pan allotted The financial ycrir for which th,: I.r.t Income-Tax ri-'ILuls has been fileci 2023-24 2022-23 20zt -22 2020-21 2019-20 Not 2023-24 2022-23 II llt 2021-22 lv z0z0-2t v) 2019-202r) i) Not applrr: rbl,: ii) Not applic ibl,: iii) Not apph,:,tbl,: iv) Not applic rbl,: licrrbL: i) Not applic rbl,: ii) Not appli,; rbl,: iii) Not applic,Lbl: iv) Not applic rbl,: r bL: rb1,: rbl,: abl: ,ib[,: rb lc i) Not applic rbl,: ii) Not applic rbl,: iri) Not applic:rbl: iv) Not applic rb1,: licrrblc Not a i) Not apphc ii) Not applic iii) Not applic iv) Not apphc Not a Iic Not a 'I .ltal lncorle sl,own in lncorle- 'I rx retum (in R R R R '11 3I .R R )ees ,_ 4.s !Pl0l ;.4,68,400/- ;.4,68,2601- ;.5,04 000/- ;.4,07 628t- s.9,25 6401- s. 10,61 ,l 801 98,130/- 4.79 ,280/- R s.4.73,959/- In il Not applicable ii t Not applicable ii ) NLrt applicablc i,) Not applicable I\ Not a licable Not applicable i 1. iit Not applicable ir ) Not applicable i' ) Not applicablc \ Not a licable Not applicable ) Not applicable ,) Not applicable ) Not applicable rNota licable i Not applicable ir ) Nol applicable ij.) Not applicable i. ) Not applicable \' Nota licable i, 1 29 KL,J FP No.l of2024 iii) In Ex.P5, respondent No.1 disclosed his PAN Number, Income Tax Retums for five (05) years. He has also mentioned the PAN Number of his wife, her income details. With regard to dependants, he has stated as "Not Applicable" iu) It is also relevant to note that column at Serial No.(6A) consists of 'A' Details of movable assets' and 'B' Details of Immovable Assets'. The same should be mentioned in tabular forms containing columns i.e., 'serial number', 'description', 'self, 'spouse', 'HUF', 'Dependant-1', 'Dependant-2' and 'Dependant-3'. With regard to the movable properties, candidate has to disclose cash in hand, deposits in bank accounts, investment in Bonds debentures/shares and units in companies/mutual funds and others, investment in NSS, Postal saving, Insurance Policies and in any Financial Instruments in Post Ofhce or Insurance Company, Personal loans/advance given to any person or entity including firm, company, trus1 etc., and other receivables from debtors, Motor vehicles/Aircrafts/Yachts/Ships, Jewellery, bullion and valuable things and any other assets, such as value of claims/interest etc. Therefore, the candidate has to disclose all the details of movables and dues of himself, spouse, HUF and dependants etc. He has to disclose income tax dues and other dues of himself, 30 KL.J EP \o.l of2024 spouse, III-i[ ,rrr,1 dcpendants. Column No.8 deals rvit r 'p olession or occupation. I ;:rs selfand spouse. v) :r i'f l No.l0 rel'ers to Parl-B of the saici allitlai it relates to 'abstlact ol lh.r cle lails given in (l) to (i0) of Part-A, rv[ri,:h is in tabular form. In tlrc i rirl tabular form at serial No.7, the feLiti rner has to disclose PlrN 'l.rnrber of himself, his spouse and IIUIr ind income tax returns So"izrr flo.8 is with regard to the details of rlssct:; arxl liabilities of the can<licllilt. Sl)ouSe , HUF and dependants. The r;arne is :elevant and it is cxtracted it: r.rlder PART-B (10).\lls['l R {CT oF THE DETAILS GIVEN IN (l) TC'(10) Or P.A.R'[-1 I 2 l 4 5 6 7 Narrc of tl,: ,...'rJirlate Full Pctstrl rxlrl :.s l ame of Nurlbel u,i constituel (r v r I SIate Namc r,l t1,e l'r itical party rvhich set up thri (: llrrl :l ltc 'l otal nu r rl,c ,1 pcnding criminal Tolal nr nrlrq t ' cases in which convictc,l CASCS l' I I'J r:f a) C--anti r[.rtt b S u c) HUIi I)NLPK4O73E DNMPK4487B Not applicablc Not applicable t I l L J 8 Dctails 11 A.:r. Dcscnpti,r n KUNAMNENI SAMBAI,IVI! IIA( ) No.3-2-172, Vidyanagar llolt,n.', ( hunchupalli Villagc and mandal, Bhadrrrcl -i l'lothagudem District I l7-Kothagudem Tela COMMTJNIST PAR'I'\' OII Ii\{I)] A ( J[stitucncy, State 4 (Iour) Not Applicable Ycar which last income Tax return filed 2023-24 2023-24 Not applicable Not applicable Total irc or,t s ror n Rs.4 58. I lCi Rs.9 25.\4Ct . Not applicab le Not applicablc tS and Liabilities in Ru Self Spouse HUF l_ Depcn- I )ep, n Depen- I B I II 2 Movable Assets (total value Immovable Assets Purchase price of self-acquired immovable property Development/con struction cost of immovable property after purchase (if applicable) IT lApproximate I current market a) Self-acquired assets (total value b) inhcrited assets (Totat value) Liabilities Govemment dues (Total) Loans Bank/Financial Instihrtions and others (Total) Liabilities that are under dispute Govemment dues (Toral) Loans Bank/Financial Institutions and others (Total) o I II 10 I II u 3I KL,J EP No.3 ot2024 ., 4 4'7,70,236.071- Rs.59,69,140/- Rs.40,00,000/- Rs.86,00,0001 Rs.40,00,000/- Nrl dant-I 6 dant-II 7 Nit Nil Nil Nil Nit Nil dant-IU 8 Nil Nil Nil 5 Nil Nil Nrl Nil Nil Nrl Nil Nil Nil a)Rs.40,00,000/- b) No a) Rs.E6,00,000/ b) No Nil Nil Nit Nil Nil Nit Nit Nil Nil Nrl Nil Nit Nrl NiI Nil Nit Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nrl Nil Nit Nrl Innova Crysta vehiclc loan Rs 4,12,246 due to Union Bank of lndia, KCM Highest educational qualifi cations I have com leted Bachelor ofArts, Andhra Uni in the e^r l9'74-'7'7 vi) It is also apt to note that after Column at Serial No.6A of the affldavit at Note No.5, it is mentioned that 'candidate is responsible for supplying all information in compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in W.P. (C) No.536 of 20ll 32 KL.J EP No.l ot2024 vii) , r.r rt:ording to the election petitioner- all thr I candidates including lris!r( ndcnt No. I - returned candidate shall nccesrarill' 61, ,n. details the r',-'i r tt all colut.t.lt.rs of the affidavit including ls r ame, spouse nafile anc rli. :r:tttlattts. However, respondent No l l,a; c.isclosed his name at 1lr: rr: I :rianf column of the affidavit, but he ]ras nct lisclosed his rvife's na -rLrr u r. y,,vhsrs in the entire Ex.P5 affidar it. l'h':relbre, it is nothing b. t. r,rr-disclosure and it amounts to 'undut: int-i.rerrce' in terms of tl-re prrrr i:,',' tts of RP Act and, thcrefore, the elr:cti'rrr cf rcspondent No.l shal i .t r t clared as void. viiii \.\, r.:rcas, according to respondent No.1 , he lras filled all the blarrks ancl tl'.: r: is no need of disclosing his wife's nanre . )isclosure of PAN, inr::,-r,: la\ returns, assets and liabilities etc.. of his wife is manciatot t I I c l as not kept any column blank. l'helcton ', it is proper compliati: r:. ix) \'1 li. Vidya Sagar, leamed Senior CorLnst:I. nould contend that thelt: s r :rtrlit-rcation to the affidavit in Fonl 2l{i pu rsuant to the judgment:; o lrc Apex Court. As per the modifie<l ti:rln, ihe candidate has to fill iri i lre blanks and there is no need of nlenticnirrg his spouse name anrl ,1,.:l e ndants' name. Thus, respondent No. .i t as fllled all the cohrmns rrnr rentioned all the details, like PAN, irt,-'r,rn,: tax retums, 33 KL,J EP No.3 of2024 assets and liabilities, antecedents and educational qualifications of the candidate and his spouse. According to respondent No.l, he has no dependants and, therefore, he has not mentioned. The election petitioner is also not disputing that respondent No. I has dependants. His two children are not dependants on respondent No.l. x) LEGAL POSITION: a) The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Association for Democratic Reformsa3 and Peoplc's Union of Civil Libertiesrs categorically held with regard to filing of affidavits and giving detailed particulars in affidavit in Form 26. The said direction is being given just to ensure that false declarations are not being given by returned candidate, nor nomination forms are being submitted rnaking lalse declarations. The Apex Courl also held that right to know about the candidate standing for election has been brought within the sweep of Article - 19 (1) (a). There can be no doubt that by doing so, a new dimension has been given to the right embodied in Article - 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India through a creative approach dictated by the need to improve and refine the political process of election. In carving out this right, the Court had not traversed a n'. lzoozy 5 scc 294 34 KI-.J EP No.l of2024 beaten tt a i:. )l rook a fresh path. lt must be nolec tlrat thc right to informatir,' r' rlr ed by the Apex Courl in the said case rs qualitatively diff'erent .rol r thc right to get information about 1;ublic ; flf-airs or the right to 1r,,,'ci , , ir lonnation through press and electrotiic n edia, though to a cefiaitt :,,t : rt. there rnay be overlapping. The righr- tt' ilformation of a vote cit izcr r; sought to bc enforced against an in,lilidlal rvho intends to beconi: a l rrblic figure and the information relatel to his personal rnatie rs r, 61, r1 11ir.rn-making process of a votct'would irciu<le his right to knorv abc ut t,'. bhc fur-rctionaries who are required to bc iie cted by him. Till a ca Li,,l i lr t r gets elected and enters the House. ii v 'ould not be appropriatt: t, ) rcler to him as a public functionary. Therelcre, the right to knolr, rtl't.lr I r pLrblic act done by a public firnctionat v is not the same thing as llr,' r g rt to krlow about the anteceder,ts o' lhe candidate contestui: tl,c ,:lcction. Neveftheless, the conclusiorr l'e rched by the Courl thi. tl r: "c,ter has such a right and that the riglrt falis uithin the realm oi f ie,. i t,rr of speech and expression guaraLrte':d tr-r .Ar1icle - 19 (i) (a) carr 'r.r . ustilled on good and substantial grounds; b) I r l)eople's Union of Civil Libertie,;3', the Apex Court ref'erring ,,r thc provisions of the RP Act etc., liritl lown certain conclusir,r:;. ,, lrirh are relevant and the same are ex.[a,Jted lrereunder: 35 KL,J EP No I of2024 "V. Conclusions

123. Finally, the sumrnary of my conclusions: (^/) Securing information on the basic details conceming the candidates contesting for elections to Parliarnent or the State Legislature promotes freedorn of expression and therefore the right to information forms an integral part of Article l9(l)(a). This right to infonnation is, however, qualitatively different from the right to get information about public affairs or the right to receive infomation through the press and electronic media, though, to a certain extent, there lnay be overlapping. (2) The right to vote at the elections to the House of the People or Legislative Assernbly is a constitutional right but not merely a statutory right; freedom of voting as distinct from right to vote is a facet of the lundamental right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a). The casting of vote in favour of one or the other candidate marks the accomplishment of freedom of expression of the voter. (3) 'lhe directives given by this Court in Union of India v . Assn. for Democratic Reforms [Ed.: See full text at 2003 Current Central Legislation, Pt. II, at p. 3] were intended to operate only till the law was made by the legislature and in that sense "pro tempore" in nature. Once legislation is made, the Court has to make an independent assessment in order to evaluate whether the items of information 36 KL,1 ll'No 3 o12024 riLiilr torily ordained are reasonably adequate to se(:ur ) rh, riqht of information available to the vote,r/citi;rer. ,r r: rhurking on this exercise, the points of cisc,losut r 'rrli ;rrtcd by this Court, even if they be tentalive o. a I '0. n nature, should be given due we ighl anI ;ul',.trnlial deparlure therefrom caltnol b: io.rrilcnanced. .7 ''re Courl has to take a holistic view anJ adopt r ra arcecl approach in exarnining the k:gislatioi -,r'i'r iiling for right to inforrnation and laying dow t i.ii.r )r far]reters of that right. .-5 ll,:ction 33-B inserled by the Representat.on DJ thl l't,rr I e (Third Amendment) Act,2002 does no pass thi' t,st of constitutionality, firstly, for the rtrasrttr thzit iI inrposes a blanket ban on dissernir.ation cf in' c lrirtion other than that spelt out in thc e uactt')et t irr r:: per:tive of the need of the hour and the lutur: cr ir iu,:ies and expedients and secondll. for thc rer':in that the ban operates despite the fact ttlat tte (lir.( 11)sLrre ol inlonlation now providerl 1ol s i lt' l:ierrt and inadequate. I('. fhe right to infonnation provided liu by l)r r irnrent under Section 33-A in regaLd to tte pcn linq crirninal cases and past involvetnent llt :juch r;i,:ir s is reasonably adequate to safeguard t[,e riglrt to :nltrniation vested in the voter/citizen. Hou,cve-, th.rr: is no good reason lor excluding ther penrling 31 KL,J EP No 3 of2024 cases in which cognizance has been taken by the Court from the ambit of disclosure' (7) The provision made in Section 75-A regarding <leclaration of assets and liabilities of the elected candidates to the Speaker or the Chairman of the House has lailed to effectuate the right to information and the freedom of expression of the voters/citizens' Having accepted the need to insist on disclosure of assets and tiabilities of the elected candidate together with those of the spouse or dependent children' Parliament ought to have made a provision for furnishing this infonnation at the time of filing the nomination. Failure to do so has resulted in the violation ofguarantee under Article 19(lXa)' (8) The failure to provide for disclosure of educational qualification does not, in practical tenns' in lringe thc lreedorn ofexpression' (9) The Election Comrnission has to issue revised ihstructions to ensure irnplementation of Section 33- A subject to what is laid down in this judgment regarding the cases in which cognizance has been taken. The Election Comtnission's orders related to disclosure of assets and liabilities will stitl hold good antl continue to be operative' However, Direction 4 of para 14 insofar as verification of assets and liabilities by means of sumtnary enquiry and rejection of nomination paper on the ground of fumishing wrong 38 Kt,J El'} No 3 of20;14 rn ( ['u;itlon or suppressing rnaterial intbn.r:tjcn ilr:f 1 1l 1161 be enforced." c) '[ lre , , ]cx Court in Karikho Kria2 placing relianc r on the said judgments 1rr'r lt:r hcld that the dircction given by th: r\p,:x Courl to file affrdavits r1.'1:i ring detailed particulars in Form 26 does r.ot mean that if the compl:1c irr'bnlation is being given in the al.jdav t rrnnexing an Annexure to i . tr*: same cannot be said to be the no,-,:.r,rp tiance. The allegation :ga r-sr Sr.i Karikho Kri, a r.eturned candi.Jatt: r,,as that he has supp.csscd rlu. i cr ol owring three (03) vehicles anc n,r, -su bmrssion ol no due certif'r: r,c in the context ol electricity antl la,:r charges in respect of t ir r 3rnnlent accommodation occupied 11, h m the Apex court helc r I r: l:o,tc,tio, of the crection petitiorer tirat such non- disclosure r:i r ,l ll'ect of substantial character cannot l:e a,:cepled since in that circurrsrr;r,rce it is not a casc of improperly accc:,tcrl :Lo ni,ation, it cerlainly has r rl mate.ially afl'ected the result ,: f tlr,: :lection as contetnplatc.:l i r S,er-rrion - 100 (1) (d) (i) (iv) of the R ) u\c . Even if the object witt 'r r irh the Apex court in Associatiorr krr f)emocratic Reformsar hrrs ,', rlurred the disclosure olassets is kept i. r ierv, the facts involved the:;-ei'r rvould indicate that the ailegation the.ei, canrot be taken as norr-rli.,i losure though it could have been ope n lirr th,: appellant 39 Kt-J EP No.3 of2024 therein to indicate such aspect in the affidavit,.but in any event, it is not a substantial defect so as to materially affect the result of the election in the facts_ and circumstances of the said case. d) In Association for Democratic Reformsa3 and Lok praharirs, the Apex courl held that for elfective exercise of his fundamental right under Article - 1 9 ( 1 ) (a), the voter is entitled to have all the relevant information about candidates at an election which would include criminal antecedents, if any, of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependants assets and liabilities, their educational qualifications etc. e) Thus, the voter has the right to know about the candidate standing for election has been brought within the ambit of Article - 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The right to inforrnation of the voter is sought to be enforced against an individual who intends to become a public figure and the information relates to his personal matters including the details of spouse and dependants. f) As discussed above, in Karikho Kria2, a returned candidate, suppressed about owning of three (03) vehicles and that he has not furnished no due certificate in the context of electricity and water charges since he has occupied Govemment accommodation in MLA. Cottage No.1. Considering the same, the Apex Court held that such non- ._a:a .i '{r ,:!' : iL . | , i:.'t t&.,iir,; SIi' !i.!i:r J..: ,'4 .. ,t,: 40 KL J IP No.3 of202{ disclosure . iu rf c t. by any stretch of imagination, be Lrealccl i s an attempt on his part tr r ciuly influence the voters, thereby invi irrg the rvrath of Section - ll:r.: of the RP Act. The said Karikho (rr had declared the r,alue of r.ltc rrovable assets of his dependent lanlr 1 n retnbers and himself alr Rs i.'11,87,815/-. The value of the threc vel'irler' rn question, by compalisi :r, uould be a mere miniscule of this lrgr.rle' n any event, suppressi,ru r,l'tht: value of these three vehicles woulcl ha'",c no impact on the declalltir ,r' cl'rvealth by Karikho Kri and such Ltotr-tlis';losure could not be saitl .(' i lrlount to'undue int'luence'. g) ln llesurgence Indiae, a 3-Judge Benclt c': 'Jre '{pex Courl observccl tl[I i'the Election Commission accepts llonrirlation papers in spite of bJ ,tr Lk. patticulars therein, it would Jirt c'.ly violate the lundamcnllLl L 1:ht of the citizen to know the criminal arlt,-ccdcllts, assets, liabilities a:r cducational qualifications of tht' i: urdi'late lt was observcd thlr,. acr:epting an affidavit with such blar-ks ou d lescind the 'r verdict iLr 1r;: ociation for Democratic Reforms'r't. \ I rffidavit with blank pa . ,: tl t -s u,ould render the alfidavit nugator)'. !t: i h) lr Iiisan Shankar Kathore3, the Apex Co.rtt considered the issue ol' :,rrr- lisclosure of cerlain government dtres n ttre nomination and whe.''r:r i- amounts to a material lapse impacting hc t lection of the 4t KL,J EP No 3 ot2024 retumed candidate. The Apex Court held that non_disclosure of electricity and municipal dues was not a serious lapse as there was a dispute raised in the context thereof. The Apex court clarified that it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether such non-disclosure would amount to a material lapse or not. Material lapses by the returned candidate, inasmuch as he had faired to disclose the bungalow standing in the name of his wife and also a vehicre owned by her. IIe had also lailed to clisclose his interest/share in a paftnership firm which amounted to a very serious and major lapse. i) Paragraph No.43 of the said judgment is relevant and the same is extracted. as under: "43. When the information is given by a candidate in the affidavit filed along with the nornination paper and objections are raised tllereto questioning the correctness of the infonnation or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important infonnation, it may not be possible for the Rerurning Officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. Surnmary enquiry may not suffice. The present case is itself an exarnple which loudly demonstrates this. At the same tilne, it would not be possible ibr the Retuming Officer to reject the nomination for want of verification about the allegations made by the objector. In such a case, when ultimately it is proved rt:l ,-i, 42 Kl.l EP \o.l of2024 tra. i \vas a case of non-disclosure ard eithel th( i,il:l ruir was false or it did not contain lolr[] ct( ini.rt'tation lea<ling to suppression, it can be trelrl a' 11rir'. stage that the uotnination was itlrprcll:t1 ' ;r- - rlc,.l. Ms. Meenakshi Arora' learttcrl \u ticr -li .r rsel appearing for the Election Cotlullissior ' ,igir ly algued that such an enquiry can be onl'' at 1 [:r]c stage and the appropnatc stage woull bc in a ir e l.'cl otr petition as in the instant case, 'vhcn tle r)1,'cl,otr is challenged. The grounds stated in lletticn \r .l) arc those which can be exatnined the:re ar'd lri)rr luid on that basis the Retuming Otltcer r'r"lLrltl I e r r position to reject the nominatiorl Li reit is:' * lr :r'c the blanks are left in an affidavit' tlotriu;ttit'n : rl oc rejected there and then ln other case:; rrhe"e cl,:t r led enquiry is needed, it would depenrl upo I tltt: o t1 lolne thereof. in an election petition, as io ir [r .-tl et t'rc rontination was properly accepted or it tvas a case ( l' n1l)toper acceptance. Once it is found tl'rat it 't'ar a ( :r: ( of irnproper acceptance, as Lhet t \\ as r r i ; n lbrrnation or suppression of t la let ial i rl c rnration. one can state tl'tat question o[ -eir::t on in :,u ) r a case was only deferred to a later <[at': 'v\rl eu rh,r Court gives such a hnding, which v"ou cl hl vc ,r,ulted in rejection, the effect woulcl l-lc rat re' n nrely, such a candidate was not entitletl to c:nrest rr c the election is void. Otherwise, it rl'ou[' i lre au .rrctualous situation that even ivhetl t:rrttrtnal 1'r,.,,r:e edings under Section 125-A of the Act can be 43 KL,J EP No.l of2024 initiated and the selected candidate is criminally prosecuted and convicted, but the result of his election cannot be questioned. This cannot be countenanced." j) In Lok Praharirs, the Apex Courl held that non-disclosure of assets and sources of income of candidates and their associates would constitute a 'corrupt practice' falling under the heading 'undue influence'as defined under Section - 123 (2) ofthc RP Act. k) In Rukmini Medagowtlare, a 3-Juclge Bcnch of Apex Court held that a false declaration with regard to the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents, would constitute a corupt practice irrespective of its impact on the election of the candidate as it may be presumed that a false declaration would impact the election l) In Mairembam Prithvira.i16, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the difference between improper acceptance of the nomination of a returned candidate as opposed to improper acceptance of the nomination of any other candidate. It was held that a mere finding that there has been an improper acceptance of a nomination would not be sufficient for a declaration that the election is void under Section - 100 (1) (d) (D of the RP Act and there has to be furllier pleading and proof - ;.1::t . j'"ld Kt..I LP No I ot2024 that the r(:jull lf the election of the returned candidat': \vi's matedally affected, t,r.rl h:re would be no necessity of any such llr'( oI in the event of the nonrin L1 i,lr of the returned candidate being dc':lrLt d as having been improL-,c lJ i accepted, especialty in a case where thc'e 'e only two candidater, rrr tl t' 1iay. m) In l,l san Shankar Kathore3, the Apex (-ourt oor.rsidered two facets tha' itr,.: i:quired consideration i.e., (i) rvtrether t[,c--c s substantial complian<;,: rLr Jisclosing requisite infotmation in thr: af ldavits filed along witlt rh(., t()rnination and (ii) whether non-disclosurt: o'infirtmatiotr on identjiir:l rsllects ntaterially affected the result of her r:lection. On cxaminatiot: ,r ' tbe lacts, the Apex Court held that non-disc ltlsur:e of the clcctricitl rlu.:: irr that case was not a serious lapse, d,:spite the fact that tlrere wcrt' l.:r s outstanding, as there was abono.f,'dr disprrte about the sarne. S r i :r ' observation was made in relatiorl to li 'n- lisclosure of municipa -rl i: r. t,ltcrc there was a genuine dispute as to re''aluation and le-assessrrl.'r I rrr the putpose of tax assessment. n) In liambhu Prasad Sharma v. Charandas \[ahantaa, the Apcx Co:r'r lrr ld that nomination paper is not considere(i srtcrosanct and what is t:,br: seen is whether there is substantial conplit,nce with the o'. (20t2) 1l \( ( r) | 45 KL,J EP No.3 of2024 requirement as to form and every deparlure from the prescribed format cannot, therefore, be made a ground for the rejection of the nomination paper. o) On consideration of the aforesaid judgments, in Karikho Kria2 at paragraph No.44 the Apex Court held as tbllows: "44. Though it has been strenuously contended before us that the voter's 'right to know' is absolute and a candidate contesting the election must be forthright about all his particulars, we ar'e not inclined to accept the blanket proposition that a candidate is required to lay his life out threadbare for exarnination by the electorate. His 'right to privacy' would still survive as regards matters which are of no concern to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office. In that respect, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect, rluch less, a delect ol a substantial character. It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of rnovable property that he or his dependent farnily members owns, such as, clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery and fumiture, etc., unless the same is ofsuch value as to constitute a sizeable asset in itself or reflect upon his candidature, in tenns of his lifestyle, and require to be disclosed. Every case would have 10 turn on its own peculiarities and there can be no hard and fast or 46 KI-,I FP No.3 ot2021 i,rr,ri jacketed rule as to when the non-discll surr " rf t pa .i:ular tnovable asset by a candidat: rli'uLI rr,)rlt to a delect of a substantial charactc'r. I:o- rl\ r lule. a can<lidate and his farnily who otr' tt s':t :t-i l rir.lr - rt icecl watches, which would aggreE,akr t. 1 -11 l( figure in tettns of monetary va[ur:. 't'oltl I .,f ,'cus1.v have to disclose the satle as they r:ort:titttt: lr i\ i.el ol high vatuc and also reflect upon his a ' is t Lr 1i. . t ,'1,:. Suppression of the same would :orlititul : 'uIr rre i[fluence' upon the voter as that re]e.i at t inI:r'lation about the candidate is being l<ept away 1i, rl r thc voter. However, if a candidatc at cl h s thr: r ly nrernbers each own a sirnple watch, rvlric lr s rri' Lig:hly priced. suppression of the valtr'l ol' iuc h ,\' rI r res lnay not amount to a defect at all. Jacir :as e .i r',r l11. therefore, have to bejudged on its olrrt lat 1s. ' p) Irr \'l lngani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo lShantlarias, rvherein a returne(l r i: rr lidate is atleged to be guilty of non-corrpiii nce with the pro','ision; r l ::tc Clonstitution or the RP Act or any Il ul :s or Orders macle the':rrtre r and his election sought to be declar':d as voki on that groulld, tlri .".r r:x Cour-t held that it is essential for t re clt:ctron petitioner to aver, b.,' p e lrling ntaterial facts, that the result ol tre elt'ction insofar as it conr:e"-n,: I the returned candidate has been n: ate -lilll'' afI'ected by such breat:l' : ,r iron-obseryance. It is only on the basis c I r uch pleading ". (zotz) 3 s:(t r 1 47 KI-J EP No.3 of2024 and proof that the Court would be in a position to form an opinion and record a finding that such breach or non-compliance has materially affected the result of the election before election of the retumed candidate could be declared void. Mere non-compliance or breach of the Constitution or the statutory provisions, as stated above, would not result in invalidating the election of the returned candidate under Section 100 (l) (d) (iv) as the sine qua non for declaring the election of a returned candidate to be void on that ground under Clause - (iv) of Section - 100 (1) (d) is further proofofthe fact that such breach or non- observance has resulted in materially affecting the election of the returned candidate. For the election petitioner to succeed on such ground, vr., Section - 100 (1) (d) (iv), there is heavy onus to not only plead and prove the breach but also show that the result of the election, insofar as it concerned the retumed candidate, has been materially affected thereby. xi) As discussed above, at the cost of repetition, in Karikho Kria2, the allegation against the retumed candidate is that he did not disclose three (03) vehicles and no due certihcate in the context ol electricity and water charges respect of the Government accommodation occupied by him, the Apex Court held that non- 48 KI,.J FP No l of2024 disclosure rr1''1r : same will not affect the election matelial[y and thc said non-disclos rrr.r s not ofa substantial character in natttre. xiil lr' \jmera Shyam v. Mrs. Kova Laxmilo. ttre allegation levelled alrtrf :ir the returned candidate by the election pi{itioner is that she has nct suh ritted five (05) years Income Tax Retulrts in the relevant column a rrl. trr,,:re fore, it amounts to 'suppressiott ol ia,.:t'. It also amounts t- ( o'r'upt practice'. On examination of the tacts therein and also placi'rir ,.l iance on the plinciple laid down b1 tll; r\1,sx Court in Karikho lr.r'irr this Courl held that the returned t-andidate has mentione<, i i he details, disclosed hcr income tar rrllurl1l,, assets and liabilities rnclr,r Jrng movable and immovable etc., it is rrot suppression and the su':rc.'1 ,:lcction of returned candidate is not all'e,:te1 materially. With thc iar,l fiL1dirlgs, this Court dismissed the trlcct on petition However, '. brought to the notice of this CorLft Lhat the election petitioner .in liled appeal virle Civil Appeal No.13'll5 t,l.]024 and the sarne is res,(li, ci for judgment xiii) I r .lie light of the aloresaid principle, cotriul; ar the facts of the prescnt c Ls(, as discussed above, the allegatiorr a.ltainst respondent No.1 - retLLnr,: I candidate is that he did not disclc,se iris ,vife's name. ou. E.P. Nn. Lrt , r) 1 decided on 2 5.10.2.024 49 KL,J EP No.3 of2024 Therefore, it is suppression and it amounts to 'undue influence' and the same is in violation of Article - 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India xiv) As discussed above, respondent No.l has disclosed his wife's PAN, income tax returns for the last five (05) years, her assets and liabilities. By mentioning the same, respondent No. 1 returned candidate disclosed that he got married and he has a wife. Therefore, the only question this Court has to consider is, as to whether non- disclosure of respondent No.l's wife name in Ex.P5 - affidavit wilt affect the election materially and the said non-disclosure is substantial character in nafure. xv) As discussed supra, respondent No.1 - returned candidate has filled all the columns in Ex.P5 - affidavit and there are no blanks. On consideration of the same only, Returning Ofhcer has accepted his nomination and he has rejected the objections submitted by respondent No.2 vide Ex.P 10. xvi) As discussed above, respondent No.l - returned candidate has to mention the said facts including his name, PAN Number, lncome Tax details, educational qualifications, assets and liabilities of himself. He has to disclose the said details of his wife's name and his dependants 't:: : 50 KL,. FP No 1 of2024 in Ex.P5 a -fidrrr jt as per thc directives of the Apex (lourt n {ssociation for Democln tic Re[ormsa-1. Non-mentioning /non-tlis,.;losure of respondenl \J( s r.i,ife name is not a ground to deciar: his election as void in ter-rrr, , rl !:cction - 100 of the RP Act. xvii , [t i ; atrt to note that respondent No. I has tt, rlis,:lose all the detaits of .i:, LlaritaI status, antecedents, educational c[-rl,lif cations and details of ,jcp()r(lants. I{e has to disclose the said detail:' oI his spouse and his clr:lrcr,r'ants. The samc are tnandatory. llt,spitncle lt No.1 has disclosed 1lrc, rl rresaid details. He has not mentioncrl h.is rvi [e's name at the spousc oi.) rl ln in Ex.P5 affidavit. It is also not ln c ispute that voter should knou .lr: details of candidate and it is par1 o1'A.rticlt - 19 (1) (a) of the Conr;, t ;t on trf lndia. Thus, respondent No.1 lras .1 sc osed that he got rnarrierl I r: Lras spouse and he has discloscd her I)Al'. in:ome details and assets,:nr' lirbilities. Therefore. this Courl is ol tht: crniidered view that non-nrcr'r'ronin-q of his spouse name by rcsponcler.l lro I - retumed candidatc i',il I rLot affect the subject clection matcria l" znd it is not substantia i r ::lr;tracter. xviii) ;\,; rliscussed above, the election petitioner lailerl to establish that non-rrr:ntioning of his wil-e's name by responcent lio I - retumed candidate a lft. ,: .,:d the election materially and it is substi,nt al in nature. 51 KI-,J EP No.3 of2024 As discussed above, at the cost of repetition, respondent No. l - retumed candidate has disclosed that he got married, he has mentioned his spouse PAN, income tax details, assets and liabilities. Therefore, there is no material suppression by respondent No.1 - retumed candidate in Ex.p5 affidavit to set aside his election. xix) There is no dispute that there should be purity of etection at every stage. Election process is sacrosanct. Free and fair election is the sacrosanct thread that weaves our country's democratic structure. In the election petition, the verdict and mandate of electorate in a democratic party is a sacrosanct one and cannot be lightly set at naught, unless grounds upon which the same is sought to be challenged and established' bonvincingly and clinchingly. In the light of the same, in the present case, there is no non-disclosure/material suppression and there is no defect in Ex.P5 affidavit filed by respondent No.l - retumed candidate. xx) With regard to the details of notary, it is the specific contention of respondent No.l herein that Mr. Mendu Rajamallu, who notarized Ex.P5 affidavit of respondent No.1 has appointed as notary vzde G.O.Ms.No.820, dated 07.O7.2}ll. tt is for a period of five (05) years. He has renewed the same on 06.07.2016. The same is effective till 05.01 .2021. He has submitted application for renewal on ll .06.2021 52 KL,J IIP \o.3 of2024 by paying lt:c rr'Rs.1000/- towards renewal fee and l.he'st'rn': is llending with compctclt luthority. The said notary was expircil on 06'07'2021 i.e., during rrendency of hls application dated 'l ()62C21 seeking renewal.-tlretistrictRegistrar,Khammamsentrec(,mnl(ltdationstothe Commissiuc i'nd Inspector General of Registration and Stamps for renerval c:ttil r itto of practice of Mr' Mendu Rajanrallu rttt 12'Ql '2023' Therefore, ac.:r,l ding to respondent No'[, there is no fault cn the part of Mr. Merrlrr ll:rjamallu and hc has submitted th': ap;llication on 1 1 .06.202 | s t:, :king renewal of notary and the sat.t.tt: i; 1 erlding with competent atrllorrtY. xxi) l', r icw of the same, it is lelevant to note thli I'ection - 5 of the Notar'.,:s ;.t:t. 1952 deals rvith 'entry of name:' itr tnc Register and issue or rt'r't'.:r"rtl of cerlificates of practice'' Seclion - 'i '2') envisages tliat the (-ic,,. : -nrnent appointing the notary, may, oll I eccipt of an applicati,,'rl rr ( the prescribed fee, renew the cefii1'lcirt')s 11' practice of any notarl' o a period of five years at a time' lr thc said section' the word'm:'""iissubstitutedinplaceof'shall'videAcri(rlf1999w'e'f'

17.12.199(l X).r1) Rr.Lic - 88 of the Notaries Rules, 1952 rlea s wrth 'renewal of Certifical.r: t [' I'ractice' and the same is extracted hcreu il'let 53 KL,J EP No-3 o12024 "88. Renelval of Certificate o[ Practice. The certtfrcate ofpractice issued under sub rule (4) of rule 8 may be renewed for a funher period of five years on payment of prescribed fee. An application for renewal ofCenificate of practice shall be submitted to the appropriate Govemment before srx months from {he date ofexpiry ofits period of validily: Provrded lhal the appropriate Covemment may, after considering the reasons stated in the application, relax the condition of subnlission of application for renewal ofcertificate ol p.aclicc before the said period o[ slx months. Provided funher that where an application tor renerval of Certificate oa practice is received rl,ithin one year after the date of expiry ol its period of validity, the appropriate Govemmcnt may, afler considering lhe reasons stated ln the application, renew the Cenificate ofPractice with elfect from lhe date ofexpiry of its period of validity." xxiii) In the present case, Mr. Mendu Rajamallu has submitted the application on I1.06.202i by paying renewal fee of Rs.1,000/- on

10.06.2021. His cerlificate was expired on06.07.2021. The competent authority i.e., the District Registrar, Khammam, kept the said renewal application pending. However, thc District Registrar, Khammam has sent recommendation on 12.01.2023 to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps for renewal of cerlihcate of practice of Mr. Mendu Rajamallu. Basing on the said recommendation , the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps has issued Ex.Xl proceedings, dated, 22.01.2024 renewing the notary of Mr. Mendu Rajamallu w.e.f.07.01 .2021 for a period of five (05) years. Thus, respondent No.1 cannot be found fault with the same. xxiv) As discussed above, the said Mendu Rajamallu has submitted renewal application on 11.06.2021 before expiry of his 54 KL,J EP No.3 of2024 cefiifrcate rt:. 1t6.07 -2021 . As per provision to Rule - ltli o the Notary Rules, the ap:rr tltriate Government has power to relax tlre ':ondition of submission 01 appJication for renewal of certificate of ptar:tit e befbre the said peric <1 r: six (06) months. ln the present cas':' NIr' Mendu Rajamallu ha'r submitted apptication seeking rene'wal 'rn 1i'06'2021' The said lat,, ,vas considered by the appropriate (irvt rtlment and renerved t is c r:r I ificate vide Ex.Xl proceedings. xxr r '\"'tctt the notary has applied for renerval iLl lrcc rrdance with the Rules Irt, r,r.e expiry of last certihcate, he woulr] be cntitlcd for renerval ttnil .:r' Section - 5 (2) of thc Notaries A:t, 1')5ll' 'fhe said principle r'\ari.lso held by the Patna High Cour-t irr Sushil Kumar Gupta v. Stat t of BiharaT. xx.'i) 't het'e is no challenge to Ex.Xl . lt is re[':i an. to note that respondent I\, .) - returned candidate has believed tlte r e'sl, rn of the said Mr. Merr,lu ilr jarnallu that he has already submitte<l a|plicrtion seeking renewal ,r1'1' : ccrtificate and the samc is pendin.r: ur tlt t ie competent authority /, r trn the date of notary of Ex.P5 afhclavit e , 08' l l'2023, the appli,:at'.rt submitted by the said Notary is pcndng with the conlpeterrl ar t rority and the District Registrar, Khamilarr, has already

47. AtR I99:; l'tr I r' 55 KI-,J EP No.l of2024 submitted repoft on 12.11.2023 recommendation for renewal of notary and the same was pending with the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad. Therefore, as on the date of notary of Ex.P5 i.e., 08.11.2023, the District Registrar, Khammam has already forwarded his recommendations for renewal of certificate of the aforesaid Notary and the same was pending with the competent authority. Thereafter he has issued Ex.Xl proceedings dated 22.01.2024 renewing notary of Mr. Rajarnallu w.e.f . 07.01 .2021. Thus, respondent No.l cannot expect to conduct an enquiry to ascerlain validity of the said ceftificate while obtaining notary on Ex.P5. Therefore, on the said ground, it cannot be held that the election of respondent No.l IS materially affected xxvii) As far as issue No.8 is concemed, in the election petition, the election petitioner has specifically mentioned the cause of action including dates etc. It is also apt to note that respondent No.l has filed an application under Order - VII, Rule - I I of CPC to reject the election petition on the ground that the election petitioner herein has not stated cause of action in the election petition. The same was dismissed by this Court. Challenging the said order, respondent No.1 has filed SLP before the Apex Court and the same was also dismissed by the Apex Court. 56 Kl-,.1 EP No.3 of202,1 Thus, resp --,Dd.rr .l No.1 cannot contend that there is tro crtt se of action in the election il\:t tion and, therefore, the said contentiln s urrsustainable' These issu::; i li iltlsrvered accordingly.

19. ISSIIE No.9: Whether the election of respond--nt No.1, from 117-Kothagrril,: rr Assembly Constituency, is liable tc' be sct rside as null and void'l i) .\: ,1i;,::ussed above, in view of the findirrgs o - tlris Courl on issuc Nos.4 .r rt 1i, thc election of respondent No. I ca trrLot be set aside by dcclaring t it:, r ttll and void. Hence, this issue is decLdctl ,lct ordingly 20 .!s!IIII No.10: Whether respondent N,:.2 is elrtitled to be declared rs .irly elected Returned Candidate fronr 17-l(othagudem Assembly lli,nsliluency, Telangana State, as he s:cttrcd rext highest votes in tt,,: I lt ction? i) 1n r i:'r, of the aforesaid findings on other rr;sLtr:s th rt there is no n'ratclial su n1r'r s.sion of fact by respondent No.1- re lurne,l c lndidate and non-rnent.,-'n, n I of his wife's name in Ex.P5 afticlavit is not material suppressi,u, rl is not substantial in character. 'llicrcfi'r'e. on the said ground, elr:,:t ir r, of respondent No.1 - returned calldida(c r annot be set aside by <ler:l;:ring it as void. Thus, this issue is hekl aga ns. the election petrtroner 5l KL,J EP No.3 o[2024

21. ISSUE No.ll: Whether respondent No. I is liable for punishment under Section - l25A (iii) read with 99 of R.p. Act l95l for his failure to furnish the required information, concealing the material information and for giving false Form-26, affidavit dared 08.1 1.2023 i) As discussed above and in view of findings on issue Nos.1 to 10 there is no misrepresentation or concealment of any material information by respondent No.l - returned candidate in Ex.P5 Form 26 affidavit dated 08.11.2023. Thus, he is not liable for punishmenr. ii) However, it is relevant to note that Section - l25A ol the RP Act deals with 'penalty for filing false affidavit etc.' and sub-Section (iii) deals with 'concealment of any information. As discussed above, respondent No.l - returned candidate did not conceal any information in Ex.P5 Form 26. Therefore, he is not liable for any penalty. This issue is answered accordingly.

22. As discussed above, the election petitioner has filed the present election petition under Section - 81 read with 100, 101 and l25A of RP Act. The election petitioner lailed to establish that respondent No.1 - retumed candidate did not furnish information, concealed material information and submitted Ex.P5 Fonn 26 affrdavit dated 08.11.2023 falsely. 58 K L,I EP No.3 ot 2t)24

23. Se.rr t,n - 100 of the RP Act deals with 'glorLnc,s 1or declaring election to b.' , rid and the same is extracted hereundr:r I'l( . Cirounds for declaring election to be void II Lrrbject to the provisions ol sub-section (21 il th ) tl r r Court] is of opinion (a lrat on the date of his election a rclutle I c a rr.irlate was not qualified, or was disqualif iecl t I b: c'l or t:u to fill the seat under the Constitution ol tiris ,\::t rr the Govemtnent of Union Terit,lries \c ' (,'i I (10 of 1963); or { | ) I ar any corrupt practice has been coururittell 11 r lc tr-'red candidate or his election agent rlr by any ()1 r l pelson with the consent of a returned calldlclate ,r I i; election agent; or i( ) I al any notnination has been irnproperll roier:teri; ,)l ii , .[rar thc result of the election, in so fhr rL-r Lt l( ni.rrls a returned candidate, has been tnatcr.ial y r' 'i t le d-- r ' ', tlte ittrproper acceptance or any nolni:lilti('n. or li I [', v any corrupt practice committed in th,: ititeres.s cl l'c retumed candidate by an agent othet tharr hLs 1' rr, lion agent, or (l.i rr the itnproper reception, refusal or rcieoiou rl air\ vote or the reception of any vote which is roi,i. (i ,, 11, any non-compliance with the provisions ol'tlLe f rr rstitution or of this Act or of anv rules ol o'rie's 59 KL,J EP No.3 of202a made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. xxxxx"

24. In Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singhas, the Apex Courl held that the success of a winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with. This is all the more so, when the election of a successful candidate is sought to be set aside for no fault of his but of someone else. The Apex Court also summed up the law and the grounds as regards the result of the election petition having been materially affected in case of improper acceptance of nomination. In Harsh Kumar v. Bhagwan Sahai Rawata', the Ape* Court reiterated the said principle.

25. In Jyoti Priya Mallick v. State of West Bengalso, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court also held that the election is very sacrosanct in democracy and if the etection process is being polluted by persons who are entrusted to conduct the election impartially, then the same will affect the sustenance of Indian Democracy. 48 50 (2002) l scc 160 (2003) 7 SCC 709 (2001) SCC Online Cal. 144 (DB) 60 KL,J EP No.l ot2024

26. rn tr: light of the afbresaid principle, in trt: p resent case, respondent .\, . - returned candidate got 80,336 vote,s, rvltilt respondent No.2 got <;:.'l(' \,otcs. Thus, respondent No.1 - retulnel candidate stood with : r'r rrgin of 26,547 votes. Therefore, \'f,ts.s o1 thc subject constituen,:1, r)r)'rsed confidence on respondent No. t. l'he i.aid election of respon<lr'nr r,.r.1 cannot lightly be interfered u,ith unlets there are grounds to sc, r sidc his election in terms of Section - I tJ() of the RP Act. There shorrlrl r, rron-disclosure of material facts in the allldrn it in Form 26 rvhich l;r.,) rl I be substantial in uature. The objccr o1-fiiin-: of the said affidavit ir lr:r'r 26 by disclosing all the details inc:lucliltg tntecedents, assets and lLa'ri rtics of the candidate, spouse and deJ)erdc ntr ctc., is that the voter :r ' , rr rl I k now sucl'r parliculars of a contesti ng ciLnc iclate bcfbrc taking a drrr:i:, r rr to vote in favour of a parlicular czLnclrdrte It becarne parl and p:r'cr 1 :1'{rticle - l9 (l) (a) of the Constitr-r,.ion oilndia. In the present cas,i. 'l (' allegation against respondent No. I is tha he has not disclosed :-r i (,, i e's name in Ex.P5 - afhdavit. As t;tat,:r. alrove. he has disclosed :i .; ,r i'e's l'AN, income tax particulars for fir'e (05) years and assets and lia 'i it.ics etc. Thus. he has disclosed that h,e pot manied and his marita strrrL s. Therefore, non-disclosure of his *ifb s name in Ex.P5 affidavit i. 'r,t ;naterial suppression and is not sub;tantial character in 61 KI.J EP No.3 of2024 nature. On the said ground, this Court cannot set aside the election of respondent No,l - rehrrned candidate by declaring the same as void. 21 . As stated above, in Krishnamoorthyra, the Apex Courl held that non-disclosure of assets and source of income of the candidates and their associates would constitute a conupt practice falling under heading "undue influence" as defined under Section - 123 (2) ol the RP Act. In the present case, respondent No.l - retumed candidate has disclosed his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties and also his spouse. Therefore, it does not amount to undue influence as contended by the Etection Petitioner.

28. Section - 36 of the RP Act deals with 'scrutiny of nomination'. During the said scrutiny and while accepting nomination, Returning Officer will only see as to whether the candidate filled all the columns or not and he will ensure that there would not be any column kept blank. During scrutiny, he cannot conduct roving enquiry. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in Resurgence Indiae, Kisan Shankar Kathore3 and Karikho Kria2.

29. In this regard, it is relevant to note that in Vashist Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandrasr, a 3-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held ". 1t9s+; z scc lz 62 KL,.] EP No I 012024 that the burrie r :-i proving that the improper acceptance of a nomination has materiirl r Ll fccted the result of an election would tLrise in one of three waf i, ( , r,'here the candidate whose nominat: orL r,'as improperly accepted ha,: .;c:urcd lcss votes than the difference betue,:n :[re returned candidate rrcl irr candidate securing the next higheit numt'er of votes, (ii) where the p:,son referred to above secured more vote!, cr (iii) where the persorr l r rse nomination has been impropeLly ar:ce'pted is the returned c,rud J.lte hinrselL lt was fu rther held that in th; 1tst case the result of tlri: r' i c lilrr-r would not be rnatelially affecte:d be,:ar se if all the wasted vo.,::, ,r :r'c addcd to the votes of the candidalc secut ing the next highest votr:i. i would make no difference to the result and lhe returned candidate rr ri. Ll retain the seat. I{owever, in the c,thel tu c cases, the result ma I frs rnaterially affected and insofal a-r the tl ild case is concerned, i r ray be rcadily conceded that suclL would be the conclusior L

30. r -, Ilari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Isihaques2, a 7- Judgc Bcnt:h ,.,. rLsidercd the scope of enquiry under liection 100 (1) (d) of the Rl' .,\c:r Ir was held that the said provisiou rex.l-urcd before an order setting a ,ide an election could be made, thal t',r.o c, rnditions be s'. 11951) 2 s,,t. s 63 KL,J EP No.3 of2024 satjsfied. It must, firstly, be shown that there has been improper reception or refusal of a vote or reception of any vote which is void, or non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the RP Act, or any Rules or Orders made thereunder, relating to the election or any mistake in the use of the prescribed form and it must further be shown that, as a consequence thereof, the result of the election has been materially affected. The Bench observed that the two conditions are cumulative and must both be established. The burden of establishing them is on the person who seeks to have the election set aside.

31. The said principie was followed by a 3-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Kamta Prasad Upadhyaya v. Sarjoo Prasad Tiwaris3.

32. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyalsa, a 3-Judge Bench of the Apex Court has taken a similar view as that of view taken in Vashist Narain Sharmast held that where a person whose nomination has been improperly accepted is the retun-red candidate himself, it may be readily conceded that the conclusion has to be that the result of the election was 'materially affected' without there being any necessity to plead and prove the same' tt. (tg6g) I scc 6lz 5'. (2020) 7 scc I 64 KI ,.I EP No 3 of2024

33. tr Nladiraju Venkata Ramana Rajtr v. Peddireddigari Ramacharldrr Ilcddyss, a 3-Judge Bench of the Aper: (lour1 reiterated that if ther: irr .: nrore than two candidates and if the rronrLnati,tn of one of the det-eatt:rl c irrr, iidates has bcen irnproperly accepte d. ir qucstion might arisc as to u lr ,'t r.:r the result of the election of the retunrerl c rndidate has been mate .iall', rf1-ected by such improper reception but thr:t rvould not be so in tlrr crr rr: of challenge to the election of the rr:ru rnt d candidate himscllon tlrr' ; rorrr-rd of improper acceptance of his tourirrat on.

34. t-'r r;rdering the said principle, in Karik.ho tirir2 the Apex Court held 1 lr Lt r 1- ;rcceptance of the nomination of rt:turn,:d candidate is show'n to be irrproper, it would automatically nrean thr,t the same materialll. aiT,:t t:d the result of thc election and nothinc tn, rre needs to be pleaded or :r t,ved.

35. ln tl t light of the afbresaid principle, as dis,:r- ss,rd above, in the present r lsl rlomination of respondent No.l . relu'ne d candidate was accep,,:,I ;r r.l there is no improper acceptance. As stat,td above, at the time o'' re,.iiving the nor-nination, Returning Officer rvill only verify as to whet.rt:r :r.rdidate filled atl the columns or not. Hr: r:arrnot conduct a roving t:nq.ri ', at the stage of scrutiny of nomination in terms of ". 120 r3; r.r -., r 65 KI.J EP No.l of2024 Section - 36 of the RP Act. Moreover, in the present case, the election petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to non-disclosure of his wife's name by respondent No.l. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention of the election petitioner that the nomination of respondent No. I returned candidate was accepted improperly is untenable.

36. In Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumars6, the returned candidate has not disclosed the payment of income tax of her spouse in the affidavit ln Form 26 and, thus, she has intentionally suppressed and not disclosed the same to the electors. Considering the same, the Apex Courl held that such non-disclosure is not substantial character in nature and it will not render election of retumed candidate as invalid.

37. In Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskars?, the Apex Court on examination of the facts of the said case where election petitioner made only bald and vague allegations in the Election Petition without stating the material facts in suppott thereof as required to be stated under Section - 83 (1) (a) of the RP Act, and that none of the allegations with regard to the false statements, suppression and tu. 2023 scc orline SC 573 i'. 2024 scc online SC 509 66 KI,,.I EP No.3 of2024 misrepreselltat ion of facts allegedly made by election pet Ltioner with regard to his ,rrhrcational qualihcation or with regard l,r hir, liability in respect of -he lt irlt availed by him for his partnership firrn or rvith regard to his defrul rr dcpositing the ernployer's contributiort to provident fund. would tr I rvithin the definition of "comrpt ltracttce' or "undue ir.rlluence'' ,rs .:r '' isaged in Section - 123 (2) of the RPr\c fl.re election petition a|;o I rr l.:s concisc statement of "material facts" a I c tr-rtemplated in Section - f .\ (a t of the RP Act. The election petttio rol rlid not raise any obj cc,., ,t I rvliting against the nomination Ii Led by .he leturned T candidate. l'1 Lr;, tire facts of the said case are differcllt to thr: f-acts of the present carlc 38 lr i ol< Praharirs, thct'e was nou-disct.rstrre o i assets and source o1- inc.r re of candidate and his associatc, the ,\1ter Courl held that it am(r, rt.i t.) 'corrupt practice'and 'undue influ:n,:e . iince it is an attempt t() su; f,rcss, effort to misguide and keep th,: r'c ter in dark. Whereas in t rt' ptesent case, there is no suppression ,r1 fact including assets and lja: I ries of the respondcnt No. 1 and het sp,xrse Therefore, the facts o1'tbr: said case are different to the facts ol the ltrest nt case. 39 1r Rukmini Medagowdale, returnr:d can lidate, who contested fo,. ,he post of Mayor, Council of Mr,,sorr: Municipal 61 KL,J EP No I of2024 Corporation, failed to disclose his assets, and it amounts to undue influence in terms of Section _ 123 of the Rp Act. But, in the present case, there is no suppression of any fact including assets, both movable and immovable and liabilities, antecedents, educational quarifrcations etc., ofrespondent No.1 and his spouse.

40. It is also relevant to note that in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhiss, the Apex Couft observed that the sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Litigation has to be end at the earliest and the concerned ritigants are relieved of the psychologicar burden of the litigation so as to be free to follow their ordinary pursuits and discharge their duties. So long as the sword of Damocles of the erection petition remains hanging an elected member of the Legislature would not feel sufficiently free to devote his whole-hearted attention to matters of public impoftance which clamour for his attention in his capacity as an elected representative of the concemed constituency. The time and attention demanded by his elected office will have to be diverted to matters pertaining to the contest of the election petition. Instead of being engaged in a campaign to relieve the distress of people in general and of the residents of his constituency who 58 1986 SCC (Supp.) 3 t5 6E Kt-,J EP \o.l of2024 voted hint into r|fice, and instead of resolving their rroblems' he would be engagecl i i r:ampaign to establish that he har; ir :act been duly elected. Itrsle.rt,,ll'discharging his functions as thc elect'-'t t't pL'esentative of the pct,rlt, l'c witi be engaged in a str-ugg1e tc' cstablish that he is indeed sut:h Ii I epr.esentative, notwithstanding the fa':t that t e has in fact Lt t and confidence of the electorate et p'llls. IIe will not r.von the .,,r.r.tl only have ,l r'', n the vote of the people and rnantlatc br'rt aiso win the vote of tllt ( (,rtrr. in a long drawn-out litigation h::fir-c hr: can whole- heartedly :rt;raoc himself in discharging the trust I()pc':'el in him by the l)r)l'trcllcY of election pctition would alsrr acl i s i hindrance if electorat€. he rvere :, rtt ,r l,ed with some public office in his eltr:t-'d capacity' He may eve - h 'r''(: occasions to deal with the repleicllra iv :s o1- foreign pou,ers ,',ltr tuav woncler whether he will eve nhr rlil' succeed and hcsitate 1,', 1lg I rvith him. 'Ihe lact that an electiott pctjticn calling into question irtrr ,:lcction is pending may. in I qivett c' se' act as a psycholc Irrc ,l ltrtel and may not permit him to act 'i th full freedom' Even if lr.: l ; t,rade of stenr metal, the Constfainl ntrc,duced by the per-rdencl c l' rLu clection petition may have som: irnlla< t on his sub- cor-rsciorr; r-ri il without his ever being or becomitrg arYar: of it. under the circr r'rs'ances, there is greater reason why in a deroc'atic seGup, in 69 KI.J EP No I of2o24 regard to a matter pertaining to an elected representative of the people which is likely to inhibit him in the discharge of his duties towards the Nation, the controversy is set at rest at the earlies! ifthe facts of the case and the law so warrant.

41. In Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singhse, the Apex Court held that it is a sound principle of natural justice that success of a candidate who has wun at an election should not be lightly interfered with and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. It is always to be bome in mind that though the election of a successful candidate is not to be Iightly interfered with, one of the essentials of that law is also to safeguard the purity of the erection process and also to see that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of that law or by com_rpt practices. \ ''42. M"ytk with the aforesaid intention, the Legislature was conscious in mentioning the timelines to dispose of electioyl petition within six (06) monrhs in Section _ g6 (7)ofthe Rp Act.

43. Itaview of the aforesaid discussion, the election petitioner failed to make out any ground to set aside the election of respondent ". aRtgsasc2to ( t 70 K ,,J t?Nolof2024 No.1 - returncc c entlidate. Therefore, all these issues ar': dcc Lde C against the election Pel it (rner

44. ISSIIII No.12: (To what reliefl) i) In vre tr ,rf the aforesaid discussion' the election pctitio'-rcr lailed to make oltt llr ) case to declare the election of respt:nder t No' 1 - rehrrned candiilitc as void. Thus, the election petition lails iLnd the same is liable to ht ,li ,nrissed. ii) ' he p 1)sent Election Petition is accordingly disrnrsstd' In the circumstart:es ,l i the case, there shall be no order as to (los'ts As z. secpel thereto, miscellaneous petitions' if arly' pcnding in this Election P:titi o'r. stands closed' \ APPENDlx OF EV-IDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For Election P etitioner: PW.1: PW.2: PW.3: PW.4: M:, \,u r<lu Lal Agarwal Mr. D, vladhu Mr. D. '}ullaiah Mr. V. Santhosh For Resp ond-g1ts: RW.1: Mr. K unamneni Sambasiva Rao I {1, '11 KLJ EI' No I ot2024 DOCUME NTS MAR KBD ON BEHALF OF ELECTION PETITIONER Exhibit Ex.Pl 09.10.2023 Copy of Memo No 4004/Elccs.DlAl12023_l Dcscription of docum ent Date issued by the ECI

03.11.2023

04.12.2023 GazetLe Notification No.37 issued by the ECI Gazctte Notification No.44 issued by the ECI Form-20 showing details of votes obtained bv the candidates of subject consti tuency

08.1t.2023 Form-26, Affidavit filed by respondent No. I

28.t2.2023 Ex.P9 t3.1t.2023 Ex.P10 t3.11 .2023 Copy of Voter ID Card of thc petitioner ( opy olthe Artlhal of rhc pctitiorrer Copy of Letter No.R'fliNR/12530, 12531/23 issued by the PiO Objection filed by respondent No.2 before the Returning Officer Original Order passed by the ,Returning Officer

25.09.2013 Voter Idcntity Card olpW I -- Ex.P2 Ex.P3 Ex.P4 Ex.P5 Ex.P6 Ex.P7 Ex.P8 Ex.l'11 F.x.P L2 Ex.P l3 Ilx.P I 4 C.C. of Vakalathnama flled on behalf of RW.l Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court C.C. of papers fron.r 34 to 48 inctuding affidavit Signed by RW.1 Copy of papers l-rom page Nos.99 to I l0 Purporled counler of R- I filed as Anncxure p/9 Before the Hon'ble Supremc Court in SLp Desori tion of document Original letter No.Notari es/720-l/2025 along with Original verification issued by Dist- Registrar to R-1, attested Photostat copy olproceedings of the Commissioner & IGRS. 1 RESPONDENT No.l Exhibit Ex.Rl Date 07 .03.2025 72 KLJ - LIP No.l ot2021 Ex.R2 !:t)21)24 Attested Photostat copy of reL ert rrl of certihcate of practice of Notaries issued by -he 'I ..!:l( RS Flx.Rl l-' 1' . l(r24 Ex.R4 2'.'-. | .',1(t)'4 Ex.R5 Ex.I{6 Ex.R7 Ex-R8 rlll I '' .,1() t4 tix.R9 L'l I .l( l8 X-SERI}: \ Exhibit Ex.Xl I , li 1023 t:il2023 Ex.X2(rt) l'lx.X2(' Er.Xl Ilx.X4 Ex.X-5(i , Ex.X5(b1 -do Attested Photostat copy of proc'rcdrrrgs ir sued by C&ICRS Attested Photostat copy of Notary t'iegis trar of Mr. Meqdu Rajamallu, Advocate [t r tht lear 2023 -do- for thc Year 2074 Attested Photostat copy ofaffidavit ol F -l -do- -do- Descrip tion of iioc u Ltt en Proeeedirtgs issued b1 lhe olfir'' rl' L otttttrissiotter and Inspector deneral, Ilclristr'-rtiot ond Statnps Department, Hyderabad, rent: ,r'itt1l :he Notary of Mr' Mendu Rajarnallu, Advocate s": i 0" 07'2021 for a furllrer period of five Ycars. Photostat copy of Form-26 u.tll(ra\'it olR-1 Photostaf copy of Fonn-26 irlll(la\.it of I{-2 Photostat copy ofobjcction lil:d by R-2 Photostat copy of order pasr;cc, b r t rc Iteturning Olficer Photostat copy of declaration '.l Photostat copy of final reslr t sh'erit ' rf votes polled in the election f :le ct ion result //TRUE COPY// SDI RIN VASA RAO .,O|lNT REGISTRAR SE,3TIoN OFFIcER To The R:trrr rirg Officer, 117 Kothagudem Assembly C onstiluency, Oio RDO Kothar; udrrr t t<lothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem listric:11. .l * .*, . t "":*-i.--t.!8i-*-*-_rEr-r=!:=a=:: / 1 '1000 1

2. The Election Commission of lndia, NirvachanSadan, Ashika Road, New Delhi_ , Electorat officer, Stare of Tetangana BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad prN, I|E 3g:t Buildrng, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 The Secretary, Telangana State Legislative Assembly, Legislatrve Assembly 5. Sri K. Sudarshan, Distiict Judge (Retired), R/o. H. No. 8-7-98/Bstp-il/r4, ^ Agric^ulture Colony, Hasthinapuram, Hyderabad, Hyderabad _ 500079 -' - 6- The Speaker of the Telangana Legislaiive Assembiy HyOeraOaJ 7. One CC to SRt RA|VIESH KUTHUIUBAKA, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI SAt PRASEN GUNDAVARAM, Advocate [OpUC] 9. One CC to Sri RATVESH KAtKtNENt, Advocate (OPUC) 10.One CC to Sri RAV| CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate (OPUC) 1 1. One CC to SRI KARUNAKAR REDDY, Advocate(OpUC) '12. Two CD Copies kut/gh Yt/ s HIGH COURT \ \ DATED:09106'2011!) I !) ft 5: '.7: i.) { I1 .i 4 1n l''I\ [6 -+ . :_\ ri ,r a D.- ".t i\i\7-'\ Ei ///J ORDER ELECTION PE:Ilrl')N No.3 of 2024 DISMISSINC 'I I I] . I ;I,EC_TION PETITION $ c"e #*