High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. Laxmi Devi, Wo Venkat Swamy, Aged . Major, R/o Plot No.54, Hamali Colony, Jogulamba Gadwal District. k. Ca6ira, fuo Srinivasulu, Aged. Maior, R/o Plot No.7, ll nd Railway Gate, Gadwal Town, Jogulamba Gadwal District. Musti Padmamma, Wo M. Pagunta, Aged. Major, Occ. Housewife, R/o Behind PJP Colony, Gadwal Town, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

4. The Returning Officer, Municipality, Gadwal. 5. The Assistant District Election Authorities-cum-, Commissioner of Municipality, Gadwal.

6. The District Election Authoritres-cum-, District Collector, Gadwal. 7. The Telangana state Election Authorities-cum-, State Election comqi.rssioner, Hyderabad. \ )\ ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the afFrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in EOP No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER \. r HOII'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYAITA ALISHET.TY CTVIL RTVISI ON PE-TITIO N.No.456 of2o24 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 29.1L.2O23 passed by the principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District in I.A.No.338 of 2022 in E.O.P.No.13 of 2022.

2. Heard, Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite seryice of notice on the contesting respondent, there is no representation on their behalf.

3. The brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of this Revision petition is that a gazette notification dated O7.OL.2O2O was issued by the Telangana State Election Commission for election of Ward Members of Gadwal Town Municipality scheduting the date of poll as 22.O1.2O2O; that accordingly, elections were held and results were declared on 25.OL.2O2O; that petitioner herein was the successful candidate from Ward No.3 and respondent No. 1 was the unsuccessfi.rl candidate in the said election. While so, respondent No. I herein frled E.O.p.No. l3 of 2020 Under Section 233 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, (for ) ) .:.-- a I 5 I i I I I I i , ! i" i i I E I I t ! t q 1 2 LNA. J C.R.P.No.156 of 2024 brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act' 2019') on the file of the III Additronal District Judge at Gadwal' Mahabubnagar District, to declare election of the revision petitioner as Ward Member from Ward No'3 of Gadwal Town Municrpality as void and to set aside the same; and further, to declare respondent No'1 herein as elected Ward Member from 3d Ward of Gadwal Town Municipality' In the said EOP, respondent No- 1' herein primarily 4. contended that the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules and Orders made under the Telangana Municipalities and Municipal Corporation Rules' 2O2O (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the RulesJ and the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act' 1951' were not thereby materially affecting the result of as revision petitioner is concerned and election insofar therefore, the election of revision petitioner' being void and inoperative, is liable to be set aside' comPlied vrith,

5. Revision Petitioner entered appearance and filed an application in I.A.No.41 of 2O2l under Order VII Rule 11(a) :_ i t ,i , i I { i * 7 { E $ & E ! Eti I & I Y 3 LNA. J C.R.P.No.456 of2024 & (d) r/w Section 151 CpC for rejection of the EOp on the following grounds: (i) That the III Additional District Judge, Gadwa_l is not a constituted Election Tribunal and therefore, the said Court has no legal jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of tJle Election petition on merits. (ii) That the Election petition does not disclose cause of action to challenge legally and validity elected returned candidate. (iii) That the Election petition is not in accordance with the mandatory statutory provisions of the Act, 20 19 and the Rules, 2020, since respondent No.l herein failed to deposit security amount before the Court while presenting the Election petition, which is in contravention of Rule g(1) (ii) of ttre Rules 2020. It was further averred that III Additional District Judge, Gadwal is not principal District Judge for Mahabubnagar District, in terms of Section 2(41 of CpC,

6. Section 1O of AP Civil Courts Act, 1972 and also under Section 3(17) of General Clauses Act, 1897, therefore, the said Court cannot be constmed as Election Tribunal to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition on merits. It u'as.further averred that the State Government, on revenue I ,---. l 4 LNA' J C.R.P.No.456 of2024 side, has reotgarized' the Districts' whereunder Mahabubnagar District was divided into five Distri'cts' consequence of which Jogulamba- Gadwal District was formed, however, on judicial side' no such reorgalization of DistrictsinTelanganawasdonebytheHighCourtof Telangana and as such, III Additional District Judge' Gadwal cannot be treated as the Principal District Judge to entertarn, try and for Jogulamba-Gadwal District dispose of the Election Petition' 7 . Respondent No' 1 herein frled counter resisting the said application and contended that as per Rule 4 (b) of the Rules, 2020, when more than one District Judge is having territorial jurisdiction, then Principal District Judge will act asElectionTribuna],pertheintentofstatelegislature.It was further stated that the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Gadwal is functioning as independent jud.iciary having proper territorial jurisdiction over Jogulamba-Gadwal District and the said Court is not under the control of Principat District Judge' Mahabubnagar District' I ; i I 'I i 1 i I 5 LNA, J C.R.P.No.456of2024

8. Insofar as paJrment of securit5r amount concerned, it was averred that she has deposited Rs.5,000/_ in the Section of the III Additional District Judge at Gadwa_I, Mahabubnagar District and the same was accepted ald in fact, the Section of the said Court never took such an objection. 9 . He further stated that if the plead.ings in tJre Election Petition are read in whole, cause of action for filing Election Petition is made out.

10. By stating thus, respondent No.l herein contended that the said application flled by revision petitioner is frivolous and also abuse of process of law and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. The III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, in the light of the judgment dated

30.11.2O21 has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition and therefore, restrained itself from adjudicating the other grounds raised by respondent No. 1 herein and ultimately, partly allowed the application and 6 LNA, J C.R.P.No.456 of 2024 returned the Election Petition under Order VII' Rule 10 CPC for presenting tJle same before proper forum ' 12. Consequent upon return of the Election Petition' respondent No.l herein presented the same before the Election Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge' Jogulamba-Gadwal District, and the sarne was re- numbered as E.O.P.No' 1 3 of 2022 ' During the pendency of the said EOP, the revision petitioner again frled an application in I.A.No.338 of 2022 under Order VII' RuIe 11 (a) & (d) CPC to reject tJre EOP on the ground that respondent No.1 herein has not deposited the securtty amountasrequiredunderSection8(1)(ii)ofAct,2o19and Rules, 2O2O and secondly, the EOP does not disclose the cause of action. They reiterated the other contentions raised in the Election Petition filed before the Honble III Additional District Judge at Gadwal' Mahabubnagar District. 13. Respondent No' 1 herein filed counter resisting the said application and contended that the allegations made in the application are not even pleaded in the counter hled t ; i i I I 7 INA, J C.R.P.No.456 of2024 in the Election petition; that the said application is filed after commencement of trial with mola yide intention to protract the Election petition and the same is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The principal Disrrict Judge, Jogulamba_Gadwal District whiie dismissing the said application, vide rmpugred order dated 29.1I.2023, observed that revision petitioner has not pressed for disposal of tJ:e application filed under Order VII , Rule 1O CpC when the same was filed before the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Ma-habubnagar District and has came with tJre present application by harping upon the point of limitation which is mixed question of fact and law and therefore, at the threshold the Election petition cannot be thrown out on the said ground a1one. 15. The principal District Judge, Jogulamba_Gadwal District has further observed that the cause of action includes bundle o[ facts and as such, the averments made in the plaint alone has to be considered while considering the application for rejection of plaint. It is f.rther observed i i I i I i I I. t, : I : : E I,NA. J C-R.P.No.456 of2024 that suppression of material facts at the time of frling of nomination is said to be cause of action for questioning the election of the revision petitioner.

16. Aggrieved by tl.e said order of t.Ile Principal District Judge, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, the present Revision Petition is frled.

17. Learned counsel appearing for ttre revision petitioner contended that pursuant to the order dated 30 'll '2O2I passed by the III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District, returning the Election Petition, the sarne was re-presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogutamba-Gadwal District, who was having jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the Election Petition, therefore, it is obvious that respondent No.l herein have initia'Uy approached wrong forum. He further contended that there was no cause of action for frling Election Petition for want of compliance of mandatory provisions under the Act, 2019 and the Rules, 2O2O and that the Election Petition is Iiled beyond the period of limitation. Learned senior counsel specilically contended that the time spent before a wrong ,/ ; I I I I 9 LNA. J C.R.P.No.456 of2024 forum cannot be condoned in Election petition by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act and all these aspects were not considered by the principal District Judge, Jogularnba_ Gadwal District in the impugned order and had erroneously dismissed the application filed seeking to reject tl.e Election petition. He further contended that the Act, 2O 19, is a self-contained Act, wherein specific time has been prescribed for filing Election petition and re said Act being a special Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the Election petitions. He further contended that deposit of security amount is maldatory as per Rule 8 (1) (ii) of Rules, 2O2A and since respondent No.1 herein fajled to compty with the said provision, tl.e Election Petition is liable to be rejected on that ground aJso. 18. To buttress his contentions as regards the period of limitation, learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Deul rr.. Manisha Deut and. otherst, the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in Mad.diipatla Jagan Mohan 1 AIR 2018 sc 39tz I I I I I I I i ; i 10 INI. J C.R.P.l'to.156 of N21 an:.rd othersz, and the Rco us. Akuld Nag o;mallesuari judgment of Karnataka Hlgh Shrrhrrzadha us' K' NoroLgaLna Reddg a'nd orothets ' 19. Learned counsel, in support of his contention that requirement of deposit of security afirount is mandatory in Court in Shaheed ElectionPetitionandnon-complianceoftlaesamewould render the Election Petition void' relied upon the judgment of the Hob'lrle Supreme Court in Charan I'al Sahu Vs' Nc;ndkishore Bhatta and otherst, judgment of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam rn T'H'Abd'ul Azeez Vs' K.G,Balas11rbr61manticrns, and judgment of the erstwhile High Court of '{ndhra Pradesh in AnJamma Vs' S' PushParn'rna and onothef ' 20. This Court gave its eamest consideration to the averments made by both the parties and the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Perused the entire material available on record and also scrupulously gone through ttre various judgments '7 MANU/AP/o107/2008 ' AIR 2019 Karnataka 42 o AIR.1973 sc 2464 5 MANU/XE/1458/2011 6 zoot 111 ALD 77 (DB) LNA, J C.R.P.No.156 of2024 of tl.e Honble Supreme Court and other High Courts, which were relied upon by learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 27. As regards the contention of leamed senior counsel for the rerrision petitioner that Election petition was fired before wrong forum, it is to be seen that as per Rule 4 of the Rules, 2O2O, Electron Tribunal shall be the District Judge' having territorial jurisdiction over the municipal area, or if there are more thal one such District Judge, tJ.e District Judge shall be the Election Tribunal. The said Rule has to be read along with Section 233 (3) of Act, 2019, as per which, ?rincipal District Judge, is designated as Election Tribunal, to try the Election petitions proceedings contended therewith. 22. In the instant case, at the relevant time of filing Election Petition before the III Additional District Judge, at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Disrrict, admittedly, principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar District existed. There was reorganisation of Districts in Telangana by the State Government on revenue side on 1 1.10.2016, wherein a new and the t2 TNA, J C.R.P.No.156 of2024 Dsitrict-Jogulamba-Gadwal District is formed by division of Mahabubnagar District into Iive 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 a P) of the Rules, 2O20' 23. The State Government issued G'O'Ms'No'61' Law (LA' LASaJ-Home-Courts-A2) Department' dated 0|'06'2022' whereunder 33 Judicial Districts in the State of Telangana co-terminus with the Revenue Dsitricts were established' 24. In view of the aforesaid GO and also in the teeth of the aforesaid provisions, the contention of respondent No'1 herein that the Court of III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District is an independent District Judge at Mahabubnagar District as such' it has got jurisdiction to try the Election Petitions is incorrect and unsustainable. Thus, originally, the Election Petition was obviouslylrledbeforeawrongforumandsubsequently,it was re-presented before the Principal District Judge' Jogulamba-Gadwal Dsitrict, which is a constituted Election // l3 LNA, J C R.P.No.456 of2024 Results of elections declared on Tribunal to tr5r the Election petitions and the proceedings connected therewith. 25. In order to compute the time spent by respondent No. I herein before a wrong forum, it is apt to note down the chronologr of dates in the present case as hereunder:- (i) Elections were held on 22.O1.2O2O (ii) 25.Ot.2020 (iii) Election petition No. 13 of 2O2O was filed before III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District on 20.o2.2020. (19 Election petition No.l3 of 2O2O was returned by III Additional District Judge at Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District vide order dated 3O.lI.2O2l (v)Election petition was re_presented before Principal District Judge, Gadwa] District on 10. 1 1.2022 and re_numbered as E.O.P.No.13 of 2022

26. Thus, from 2O.O2.2O2O to 10.11.2022, i.e., the date on which the Election petition was re_presented before the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba_Gadwal District, \. t4 LNA, J C.R.P.No.456 of2024 respondent No.l herein spent a period of 2 years 9 months by pursuing the Election Petition before a wrong forurn. 27. Now, it is to be determined as to whetler the time spent in w.rong forum carr be condoned in Elections Petitions while computing the period of limitation in filing tlle Election Petitions.

28. ln Surno,n Deui's case (cited supra), the Hon,ble Supreme Court, while adjudicating the issue as to limitation in filing of Election Petition vis-6-vis the Har5iana Panchayat Rqj Act, has held that as per Section 176 (l) thereof, the Election Petition must be filed within 30 days from tfre date of declaration of results of election and since the said Act is complete Code for presentation of Election Petition, provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act would clearly stand excluded and further, observed that the Election Petition which fails to comply with the mandated statue is liable to be dismissed. 29. ln Shaheed Shazcdhc,s case Karnataka High Court, fo[or.r,ing the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Surnan Detirs case (cited (cited supra), the : I t 1 i t i I I i I I I I I i i I i I I I I t i I I 1 !-FF-_ 15 LNA. J C.R.P.No.456 ol2024 supra), held t}lat since there is no statutory right analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, there remains no right for t]le respondent to seek for condonation of delay spent in wrong forum. 30. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court comes to conclusion that the period spent by pursuing the Election petitions in wrong forum cannot be condoned. 31. Since the core issues as to the maintainability of the Election petition and tJle period spent in pursuing the Election petition before a wrong forum are held against respondent No.l, this Court is not inclined to delve into the aspect of deposit of secr:rier amount by respondent No.l at the time of liling of Election petition. 32. In the light of the above totality of facts and circumstalces of the case and also in vrew of the judgments of the Hon,ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts as referred supra, this Court holds that the Principal District Judge, Jogulamba_Gadu,al Disrrict committed illegality and irregularity in dismissing the I t6 INA' J C.R.P.No 156 olN24 application filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and therefore, ttre same warrants interference by this Court' 33. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed' setting aside the order dated 29'11'2023 passed by the Principal District Judge' Jogulamba-Gadwal District in I.A.No.338 of 2022 ln E.O.P'No.13 of 2022 and consequendy, the said I'A stands allowed' 34. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed' No costs' ,TTRUE COPY/' DEPu?9',i[f$HX* / sEcrISYHcER To, 1 . The Principal District and Sessions Judge' 2. OneCC to SRI' CH RAVINDER Advocate 3. Two CD CoPies Jogulamba Gadwal District' loPUcl TPK/gh YY \ HIGH GOURT DATED:OI IOS1ZO}S ORDER CRP.No.456 ot 2024 \ ,_r_. \.. I ri. l a A {+ 15 sEP u6 ,)r:.. PATcH EO * ,,./ \ CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED 5 ,fE &** ! I 1 I I I ! i I t l I I i I l I I I I I I , I I I I {