Dismissed

Rajaram Dodolla v. The Election Commission of India

Telangana HC2 Nov 2018WP/39608/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's disqualification under Section 78 of the Representation of People Act for non-compliance with election expense return provisions. The court held that the delay in filing the petition, exceeding one and a half years, rendered it unentertainable in discretionary writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending stand closed.

Rajaram Dodolla Vs The Election Commission of India — Election Law | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.39608 OF 2018

¶5

ORDER (ORAL): (Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan)

¶6

Heard Sri Ambati Sreekanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India.

¶7

The petitioner impugns the proceedings of the first respondent, Election Commission of India, by which he stands disqualified from 13.04.2017 to 13.04.2020. Such disqualification was for non-compliance of Section 78 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as ‘RP Act’. The petitioner challenges such disqualification only when the list of disqualified persons under Section 10A of the RP Act has been issued. At this point of time, in November 2018, we are unable to see that there was any reason for the petitioner to wait so long to challenge his disqualification. The plea now raised that the petitioner came to know about the disqualification only from newspaper report and then, on enquiry, it appears that notice was served on some other person, is not worthy enough to be considered for acceptance in discretionary writ jurisdiction at this distance of time.

¶8

The process of election and prescriptions therewith have to be rigorously and vigorously pursued by all concerned to ensure that the elective process and the actions that would follow ought to end in a timely mode. We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed on 31.10.2018 merely on the premise that a decision disqualifying him from 13.04.2017; more than 1½ years after handing down of such decision as to disqualification on the

¶9

HCJ & SVB, J W.P.No.39608 of 2018

¶10

¶11

ground of non-filing of returns of election expenses before the competent

¶12

authority.

¶13

The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.

¶15

______________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ

¶16

_____________ S.V. BHATT, J

¶17

November 2, 2018 MRR

Rajaram Dodolla v. The Election Commission of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Dodolla v. The Election Commission of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Meridian Constructions, Proprietrix, Vs The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corportion Limited

Bana Lakshmi Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kambham Venkatarami Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Stbl Projects Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

Mr.G.Venkata Rami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gummadi Venkateshwarlu Vs Cornmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)