The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: poojari Srilekha The Court made the following: ORDER t HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE LA T NARAYANA ALISIIETTY CNIL REVISION PETI ONNo.481 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition filed assailing the order dated

29.11.2023 passed by the Princi al District Judge, Jogulamba- Gadwal District in IA.No. 330 of 2 22 in EOP. No. 05 of 2O22.

2. Heard Sri CH. Ravinder, [e ed counsel for petitioner and lWs. Srilekha Pujari, leamed coun I for respondent No.l.

3. The brief facts of the case r levant for adjudication of this Revision Petition is that a gazette notification dared 07.O1.202O issued by the Telangana S te Election Commission for election of Ward Members of Gadwal Town Municipality scheduling the date of pott AS

2.01.2020; that accordingly, elections were held and results we declared on 25.01.2020; that petitioner herein was the success I candidate from Ward No.3 I and respondent No.l was the uns ccessful candidate in the said election. While so, respondent No I herein filed EOP.No.05 of 2020 under Section 23i ofthe Tel gana Municipalities Act, 2019, (for brevity, hereinalter re lerred ro s 'the Act, 2019') on the file of the III Additional District Judg Gadwal, Mahabubnagar 2 LNA, J CRP.No.18l of 2024 District, to declare election of the revision petitioner as Ward Member from 3l Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality as void and to set aside the same; and further, to declare respondent No. 1 herein as elected Ward Member from 3l Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality.

4. In the said EOP, respondent No.1 herein primarily contended that the provisions of the Constitution and the R-ules and Orders made under the Telangana Municipatities and Municipal Corporations Rules, 2020 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and the provisions of Representation of peoples Act, 195 1, were not complied with, thereby materially affecting the result of election insofar as revision petitioner is concerned and therefore, the election of revision petitioner, being void and inoperative, is liable to be set aside.

5. Revision petitioner entered appearance and fited an application in I.A.No. 44 of 2021 under Order VIi Ruie i l(a) & (d) r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of the EOp on thc lollowing grounds:- (i)That the III Additional Districr Judge, Gadwal is not a constituted Election Tribunal and therefcrre. the said 3 LNA, J CRP.No.181 of2024 Court has no legal juri diction to entertain, try and dispose of the Election Pe tlon on ments. (ii) That the Election Peti ion does not disclose cause of action to challenge legall and validly elected returned candidate. (iii)That the Election Pe tion is not in accordance with the mandatory statutory p ovisions of the Act, 2019 arrd the Rules, 2020, since re pondent No.l herein failed to deposit security amount fore the Court while presenting the Election Petition, whi h is in contravention of Rule 8(1XiD of the Rules 2020 6 It was further averred tha III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not Principal District Ju ge lor Mahabubnagar District, in terms of Section 2(a) ol CPC, ection [0 of AP Civil Courts Act, 1972 and also under Section (17) oi General Clauses Act, 1897, therefore, the said Court not be construed as Election Tribunal to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition on merits. It was further averred that the State Govemment, on revenue side, has reorganized the Districts, whe under Mahabubnagar District was divided into five Districts. co quence of which Jogulamba- 4 LNA, J CRP.N0.4ql of 2021 Gadwal District was formed, however, on judicial side, no such reorganization of Districts in Telangana was done by the High Court of Telangana and as such, III Additional District Judge, Gadwal cannot be treated as the principal District Judge for Jogulamba-Gadwal District to entertain, try and dispose of the Election Petition. 7 . Respondent No.l herein filed counter resisting the said application and contended that as per Rule 4(b) ofthe Rules, 2020, when more than one District Judge is having territorial jurisdiction, then Principal District Judge will act as .Election Tribunal, as per the intent of State legislature. It was further stated that the ttl Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Gadwal is tunctioning as independent judiciary having proper territorial jurisdiction over Jogulamba-Gadwal District and the said Court is not under the control of Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar Districr.

8. Insofar as payment of security amount is concemed, it was averred that he had deposited a sum ofRs.5,000/- in the Section of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwat, Mahabubnagar Distr.ict and the same was accepted and in fact, the Section of the said Coun never took such an objection. ) LNA, J CRP.No-4$1 o! 2021

9. He further stated that if the Pl ings in the Election Petition are read in whole, cause of action for filing Election Petition is made out.

10. By stating thus, respondent o.l herein contended that the said application filed bY revision titioner is frivolous and also abuse of process of law and as ch, the same is tiable to be dismissed. I l. The III Additional District J ge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, in the light of the judgmen dated 30. I I .2021 of this Court in CRP.No. 4El of 2024, vide im ugned order dated 30.11.2021 has held that it has no jurisdiction t entertain the E,lection Petition and therefore, restrained itself fiom adjudicating the other grounds raised by respondent No.I herein a ultimately, partly allowed the application and returned the Electio Petition under Order VII Rute l0 CPC for presenting the same bef re proper tbrum

12. Consequent uPon return of t e Election Petition, resPondent No.l herein presented the same be ore the Election Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Jogulamb Gadwal District, and the same was re-numbered as EOP.No.O5 o

2022. During the PendencY of the said EOP, the revision Petition r again fited an aPPlication in 6 LNA, J CRP.No.48l o12021 IA.No.330 of ZO22 under Order VII Rule I I (a) & (d) CpC to reject the EOP on the ground that respondent No. I herein has not deposited the security amount as required under Section g(1)(ii) of Act, 2Ol9 and Rules, 2020, and secondly, the EOp does not disclose the cause of action. They reiterated the other contentions raised in the Election petition filed before the Hon,ble III Additional Districr Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. 13. Respondent No. I herein filed counter resisting the said application and contended that the alregations made in the application are not even pleaded in the counter filed in the Election Petition; that the said application is filed after commencemenr of trial with mala fide intention to protract the Election petition and the same is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The Principat District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District while dismissing the said application, vide impugned order datcd

29.11.2023, observed that revision petitioner has not pressed lbr disposal o[ the apprication fired under order vil Rule l0 cpc when the sarne was filed before the III Additional District Judgc ar Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and has came with thc present application by harping upon the point of limitation which is mixed 7 LNA, J CRP.No.18l of 2024 question of fact and law and there re, at the threshold the Election Petition cannot be thrown out on th said ground alone.

15. The Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District has further observed that the cause of action includes bundle of facts and as such, the averments m in the plaint alone has to be considered while considering the a plication for rejection of plaint. It further observed that suppressio of material facts at the time of filing of nomination is said to be ca se of action for questioning the election of the revision petitioner.

16. Aggrieved by the said order of the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, the pr ent Revision Petition is filed. 11 . Learned counsel appearin for the revision petitioner contended that pursuant to the o er dated 30. 1t.202 I passed bY the III Additional District Jud e at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, retuming the Election Pet on, the satne was re-Presented before the Principal District Jud e, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, rvho was having jurisdiction to entertain and disPose of the Election Petition, tlrerefore, it is obvious that respondent No. I herein have initially approache wrong forum. He lurther contended that there was no cau of action lor filing Election 8 LNA, J CRP.No.18l oJ 2024 Petition for want of compliance of mandatory provisions under the Act,2019 and rhe Rules, 2020 and that the Election petition is filed beyond the period of limitation. Leamed senior counsel specihcally contended that the time spent before a wrong forum cannot be condoned in Election petition by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act and all these aspects were not considered by the Principal Districr Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in the impugned order andhad erroneously dismissed the application filed seeking to reject the Election petition. He further contended that the Act,20 19. is a self-contained Act, wherein specific time has been prescribed for filing Election petition and the said Act being a Special Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the Elecrion Petitions. He further contended that deposit of security amourlr is rnar.rdatory as per Rule g(lXii) of Rules, 2020 and since respondenr No.l herein failed to comply with the said provision, the Elecrion petition is liable to be rejected on that ground also.

18. To buttress his contentions as regards the period of limitation, leamed senior counset relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in Suman Devi Vs. Manisha Devi and 9 LNA, J CR?.No,4El oI2024 otherst, the judgment of the ers while High Court of Andhra P ad ES r h 1n Maddip atla Mohan Rao Vs. Akula Nagamalleswari and otherl arrd judgment of Kamataka High Court in Shaheed Shahartdha Vs. K.Naayana Reddy and anothei.

19. Learned counsel, in su ort of his contention that requirement of deposit of security ount is mandatory in Election Petition and non-compliance of the ame would render the E,lection Petition void, relied upon the j t of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu Vs. hore Bhatta antl othersa , judgment of High Court of a at Emakulam in T.H.Abdul Azeez Vs. K.G.Balasubramanians and judgment of the erstrvhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in najamma Vs. S. P ushpammu antl another6. 20- Per contra, learned counse for respondent No.l herern contended that Principal District J e,Jogulamba-Gadwal Dis trict has rightly dismissed the applica n on the grounds on which the respondent No. I herein sought for ection of the Election Petition lrua zota sc 39t2 'znnruu7ne7o rozTzoos rnIR 2019 Karnataka 42 onln r9z: sc 2q6c 'MANU/KE/ 1458/2011 6zoorlr; ero zz 1oe; l0 LNA, J CRP.No.l8I of 2021 by observing that the same can be decided only after full-fledged trial and therefore, the Election petition cannot be rejected at the threshold. She further contended that Election petition was filed within the period of limitation and further, the security amount was deposited with the Superintendent of the Court of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District along with the Election Petition and it is also a fact that the Section of the said Court has not raised any objection with regard to non-payment of security amount at the time of numbering the Election petition, even otherwise, as observed by the principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadu,al District in the impugned order, it is a curable defect.

20. l. Leamed counsel further contended that originally, Election Petition was filed befbre the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District which has got jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition. more so, in view of reorganisation of revenue Districts in 'I'elangana State by the State Govemment, hence, the contention of the revision petitioner that Election Petition was filed belore a wrong lorum i.e., III Additional District Judge at Gadw.a[. Mahabubnagar- District is untenable. She finaily l1 LNA, J CRP.Nq.4E I of 2024 contended that the revision petiti failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the well- asoned impugned order ofthe Principal District Judge,Jogulamba- wal District and hence, this Revision Petition is liabte to be dis issed.

21. This Court gave its eamest onsideration to the averments made by both the parties and the ents advanced by leamed counsel appearing for both the p es.Perused the entire material available on record and also scrupul usly gone through the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, which were relied upon by leamed ounsel appearing for both the partles. )) As regards the contention of leamed senior counsel for the revision petitioner that Election P ition was filed before wrong forum, it is to be seen that as Rule 4 of the Rules, 2020, Election Tribunal shall be the 'Di ct Judge' having territorial jurisdiction over the municipal or if there are more than one such District Judge, the Principal District Judge shall be the Electlon Tribunal. The said Rule h to be read along with Section 233(3) of Act, 2019, as per whi 'Principal District Judge' is t2 LNA, J CF-P.No.lEI of 2024 designated as 'Election Tribunal' to try the Election petitions and the proceedings connected therewith.

23. In the instant case, at the relevant time of filing Election Petition before the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Distr.ict, admittedly, principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District existed. There was reorga-nisation of Districts in Teiangana by the State Govemment on revenue side on ll.10.2016, wherein a new DistricrJogulamba-Gadwal District is formed by division of Mahabubnagar District into five segments. However, on judicial side, there was no such reorganisation of Districts, as such, the Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District continued to be the Election Tribunal as postulated under Rule 4(b) of rhe Rules, 2020.

24. The State Govemment issued G.O.Ms.No.61, Law (LA, LA&J-Home-Courts-A2) Deparrment, dared 01.06.2022, whereunder 33 Judicial Districts in the State of Telangana co- terminus with the Revenue Districts were established.

25. In view of the aforesaid GO and also in the teeth of the aforesaid provisions, the contention of respondent No. t herein that dhq Court of tl[ Additional Disrricr Judge at Gadwal, 13 LNA, J CRP.No.4El of 2024 Mahabubnagar District rs an dependent District Judge at Mahabubnagar District and as such, it has gotjurisdiction to try the Election Petitions is incorrect and ustainable. Thus, originally, the Election Petition was obviously filed before a wrohg forum and subsequently, it was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, which is a constituted Election Tribunal to try the Election P titions and the proceedings connected therewith.

26. In order to compute the ti e spent by respondent No.l herein before a wrong forum, it is t to note down the chronology of dates in the present case as here der:- (i) Elections were held on 22 ot.2020 (ii) Results of elections decl edon25.01.2020 (iii) Election Petition No. 05 of 2020 was filed before III Additionat District Ju e at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District on20.02.2020 (iu) Election Petition No. 05 of 2020 was returned by [Il Additionat District Jud e at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District vide order dated 3 .r1.2021 t4 LAIA, J CRP.Nq.48l of 2024 (v) Election Petition was re-presented before principal District Judge, Gadwal Disrrict on 10.11.2022 and, re- numbered as EOp.No. 05 of 2022

27. Thus, from 20.02.2020 to 10.11.2022, i.e., the date on which the Election Petition was re-presented before the principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, respondent No. I herein spent a period of 2 years 9 months by pursuing the Election petition before a wrong forum.

28. Now, it is to be determined as to whether the time spent in wrong forum can be condoned in Election petitions while computing the period of limitation in f,rling the Election petitions. 29. In Suman Devi's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while adjudicating the issue as to limitation in filing ofl Election Petition vis-d-vis the Haryana panchayat Raj Act, has held that as per Section 176(l) thereof, the Election petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of declaratiorr of results of election and since the said Act is complete Code for presentation of Election Petition, provisions of Section I4 ol Limitation Act would clearly stand excluded and further, observed that the Election 15 LAA, J CRP.No.,&I oJ 2021 Petition which fails to comply wi the mandated statue is [iable to be dismissed.

30. In Shaheed Shahazadha's e (cited supra), the Karnataka High Cour! following the judgmen of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swnan Devi's case (cited sup ), held that since there is no statutory right analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there remains no right for the res dent to seek for condonation of delay spent in wrong forum.

31. In the tight of the aforesaid j nts, this Court comes to \ conclusion that the period spent by ursuing the Election Petitions in wrong forum cannot be condoned )

32. Since the core issues as to the maintainability of the Election Petition and the period spent in ursuing the E.Iection Petition befure a wrong forum are held again t respondent No. t, this Court is not inclined to delve into the aspec o I deposit oIsecurity amount by respondent No. 1 at the time of fi I ng Election Petition.

33. In the light of the above rotal ty of lacls and circumstances of the case and also in view of t e judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other I igh Courts as referred supra, this Court hotds that the Principa District Judge, Jogulamba- t6 LNA, J CRP.No.4EI of 2021 Gadwal District commimed illegatity and irregularity in dismissing the application filed under Order VII RulB l0 CpC and rherefore, the same warrants interference by this Court. 34. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the principal Districr Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in LA.No.330 of 2022 in EOP.No. 05 of 2022 and consequently, the said I.A stands aliowed.

35. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR seck'orrrcrn To, 1 The principar District and sessions Judge Jogulambad Gadwar Drsrrict (with records if anY) One CC to SRl CH Ravinder' Advocate [OPUC] 2 3 One CC to SRl Pooiari Srilekha' 4 Two CD CoPies Advocate IOPUCI 't^ { l-r t, HIGH COUR DATED.04t04l2025 ORDER CRP No 481 of 2024 lHL (r oY ':_:i\ - t,,, -) \l 11 A|JE 2025 -t-'l :r --" .,.-rEo :t .i, * \ ( IVII Rtr\"lSlON PETITION IS ALLOWED