Allowed

Erumalla Surender Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2019WP/8061/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order declaring the petitioner ineligible to contest elections due to alleged non-submission of expenditure accounts. The Court allowed the petition relying on a previous common order that set aside similar disqualification orders due to authority lapses and delays.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order declaring the petitioner ineligible for election is set aside; the writ petition is allowed.

Erumalla Surender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8061 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

¶5

“…… to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the orders passed by the respondent No.3 in proceedings No.739/TSECLKRMN/2015-MPTC(67), dated 25/11/2017 through which declaring the petitioner is ineligible for a period of 3 years from the date of issue of the order to contest any election to be held any office under the provisions of Telangana Panchayath Raj Act 1994 even though the petitioner has submitted his election expenditure account in the month of May 2014 itself within prescribed time is nothing but arbitrary illegal null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of Telangana State Panchayath Raj Act and to pass ….”

¶6

When the matter is taken up, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission fairly concedes that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order dated 20.03.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2630 of 2018 and batch.

¶7

In the aforesaid order, this Court had categorically held

¶8

as under:

¶9

“Once the statute required the authorities to take steps ‘immediately’ or ‘as soon as may be’, they cannot sleep over such matters for years together and thereafter seek to justify the delay on their part. It may also be noted that in so far as the elections held in 2013 were concerned, the stipulated period of forty-five days expired in September,

¶10

2 CKR,J W.P.No.8061 of 2019

¶11

2013 itself, long before formation of the new State of Telangana and the issues that cropped up thereafter.

¶12

Be it viewed from any angle, this Court finds that the balance would tilt in favour of the petitioners, given the lapses on the part of the election authorities in giving effect to their statutory obligations. The orders of disqualification visited upon the petitioners by the Commission are accordingly set aside.

¶13

The writ petitions are allowed.”

¶14

In the present case, admittedly, the elections were held in the year 2014 and the time for submission of election expenditure is 45 days from the date of declaration of the results and respondent No.3 ought to have taken action, if any, immediately thereafter or within a reasonable time. However, the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid order applies to the present case also.

¶15

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 20.03.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2630 of 2018 and batch.

¶16

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

__________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶18

17.04.2019. Msr

¶19

3 CKR,J

¶20

W.P.No.8061 of 2019

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.8061 of 2019

¶23

17.04.2019 Msr

Erumalla Surender Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Erumalla Surender Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dodla Malla Reddy Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Leafgen Biotech Private Limited Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

M/s. Shefa Agricare Technologies Vs The State of Telangana

3i Infraprojects (Mauritius) Limited, Vs Navayuga Engineering Company Limited

M.Jeshwanth Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Rangu Subash Vs The State of Telangana