Allowed

Kandukuri Padma v. The Telangana State Election Commission and 5 others

Telangana HC6 Oct 2020WP/14575/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two ward members challenged their disqualification for failure to submit election expenditure accounts. The High Court found the accounts were submitted on time but the local officer failed to update the portal, causing an apparent illegality.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the proceedings disqualifying the petitioners and directed the Chief Electoral Officer to pass appropriate orders considering the findings of the enquiry.

Kandukuri Padma Vs The Telangana State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S'I r"ri ",L 3,15,35 l[}}ji!,i.Tf^{Ar HYDE RABAD}

¶2

" ".,?^il;lll=,3,IJ3 ift X ?,i, g,,.ii'.^-

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRI T PETIT ION NOs. 14568 AND 145 75 0F 2020

¶5

WRI T PETITION NO . 14568 oF 2020:

¶6

Between:

¶7

Madharapu Taravva (d Tara, Wo. Sattaiah, Aged 4g years, Occ: Ward lvlember, R/o. H No. e-131, JireriS viriigl, ihln;Jl'iiii"'rii ilZii"r. Rajanna sircirra District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Telanoana State Election Commission, 1.t Floor, DTCp Building, Opp. pTl pylO1lO,l C Gaurds. Hyderabad. nep. OV iis Seirejary.

¶11

rn-e L;ommissioner. Rural Development dnd Unemployment and state Election Officer, Hyderabad.

¶12

3 The District collector and District Election officer, Rajanna Sircilla District. 4 The District Panchayat Officer, Ralanna Sircill; District. Ihe IVlandal Parishad Development officer, Thangailapaili t/andar, Rajanna

¶13

Sircilla District.

¶14

6 The Grampanchayat, Jillarla, Thangarapaili Mandar, Rajanna sirciila District.

¶15

..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No. 2907/TSEC-pR/Tanghailapaily/Gps/2019(a9) lward^{121dated 03.03.2020 of the 1't Respondentdisqualifying the Petitioner} from the elected^post of Ward lVlember of 12'h Ward of 6th Respondent and disqualifying the Petitioner from contesting the elections for up to three^{(3) years to any post on the} ground that the Petitioner had failed to submit her election^{expenditure accountas} required U/s. 238 of Telangana^{Panchayat Raj Act,20',l8 and Article'103(2) of the} Telangana Panchayat Raj^{(Election t/anagement) Act, 2018 even after the Petitioner} had submitted the accounts^{on11 .O2.2O19to the 5th Respondentas illegal, arbitrary,} non-application of mind, colorable^{exercise of powerand violation of the provisionsof} the Telangana Panchayat^{Raj Act, 2018, violation of Article14 of the Constitution of} lndia and consequently^{set asidethe proceedings No. 2907/TSEC-PR/Tanghallapally/} Gps/2019(49) dated^03.03.2020 [ward^{12] of the l"tRespondent disqualifyingthe}

¶17

6Z-

¶18

petitioner from the erected post of ward^{Memberof 12th wardof 6th Respondent and} disqualifyingthePetitionerfromcontestingtheelectionsforuptothree(3)yearsto any post.

¶19

IANO:1O 20

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{HighCourt may be pleasedto suspend the} proceedings No. 2907/TSEC-PR/Tanghallapally/GPs/2019(49) dated 03.03.2020 [ward^{1 2] of the '1't Respondent disqualifyingthe Petitioner from the elected post of} Ward Member of 12th Ward of 61h Respondent and disqualifying the Petitioner from contesting the elections for up to three (3) years to any post.

¶21

wRrT PETITTON NO.14575 0F 2020:

¶22

Between:

¶23

Kandukuri Padma, W/o. Ganesh, Aged 42 years, Occ: Ward lVlember, Rio. H.No. 2-134, Jillella Village, Thangalallipalti Mandat, Rajinna Sirciila District

¶24

,..PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

The.Telangana State Election Commission, 1s Floor, DTCp Building, Opp. pTl ^^{Build1l9, A.C. Gaurds, Hyderabad. Rep. by iis Secretary.} 2. The commissioner, Rural Developmdnt dnd unemployment and state Election Officer, Hyderabad.

¶27

3.. The District collector an_d-District Election officer, Rajanna Sircilla District. 4.: The District^panchayat Officer, Rajanna Sirciiiabistrlct.

¶28

b. rhe IVrandar^parishad Deveropment officer, Thangailapaili Mandar, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶29

The Grampanchayat, Jiilaila, Thangarapaili Mandar, Rajanna Sirciila District.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to lssue a writ, order or dlrection more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus decraring the proceedings No. 2907/TSEC-pR/Tangharapary/Gps/2019(41) [ward 3] dated 03 03 2020 of the 1"t Respondent disqualifying the petitioner from the elected post of ward l'4ember of 3'd ward of 6th Respondent and disquarifying the petitioner No 1 from contesting the erections for up to three (3) years to any post, on the ground that the petitioner had faired to submit her erection expenditure account as required U/s 238 0f rerangana panchayat Raj Act,.201B and Article 103(2) of the Telangana Panchayat Rai (Election Management) Act, 2018 even after the petitioner had submitted the accounts on 11.02.201g to the Sth Respondent as iregar, arbitrary, non-apprication of mind, cororabre exercise of power and vioration of the provisions of

¶32

,-3

¶33

the Terangana panchayat Raj Act, 20.1g, vioration of Articre 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequen|y set aside the proceedings No. 2907lTSECPR/Tanghallapally/GPsl2o19(41) fward 3] dated 03.03.2020 of the 1,t Respondent disqualifying the Petitioner from the erected post of ward Member of 3d ward of 6th Respondent and disqualifying the Petitioner from contesting the elections for up to three (3) years to any post.

¶34

lA NO: 1 o F 2020

¶35

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the proceedings No.2907/TSEC-pR/Tanghallapa|ylGpsl2o19(41) [ward 3] dated 03.03.2020 of the l"tRespondent disqualifying the petitioner from the elected post of ward lVember of 3'd ward of 6rh Respondent and disqualifying the petitioner from contesting the elections for up to three (3) years to any post.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner in both Writ Petitions: SRI T. SURYA SATISH

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both Writ Petitions:

¶38

SRI G. VIDYA SAGAR, Sr. COUNSEL FOR

¶39

SRI P. SUDHEER RAO, S.C. FOR ELECTION COMMISSION

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 in both Writ Petitions:

¶41

GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 & 6 in both Writ Petitions:

¶43

SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, S.C. FOR GPP/MPP/ZPP

¶44

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶45

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICECHALLAKODANDA RAM} and^{14575 of2020} WRIT^{PETTTIONNos. 145}

¶46

COM MO^{N ORDER:}

¶47

ln both these^{Writ Petitions,issueinvolved is one and the} same, as such,^{theyare being taken r-rp for disposal'}

¶48

It is the plea of^{the petitioners that as a matterolfact'they'} submitted the statement^{of electionexpenditurein compliance} with Rule 103(2) of the Telangana^{PanchayatRaj (Conduct of} Elections) Rules, 2018^(for short^{'the Rules'), but, respondent} No.1 - Telangana State Election Commission,^{I-Iyderabad, issued} proceedings dated 03.03.2020 disqualifying them from the clected post and from contesting thc eleclions lor a^period of three (3) years to any post on the ground that thcre was no statement of election expenditure submitted by them.

¶49

ln the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5 - Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Thangallapalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, it is asserted that he had taken charge on 19.07.2019 and tliat initialll', basing on the web portal, a list of particulars, in which, names of the petitior.rers were nrentioned as the persons who had not submitted the statement of election expenditure, was sent to respondent No.l, thereby, a notice dated 25.11.2019 was issued to the petitioners by respondent No.l. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted their statements of electior.r

¶50

2 W P.Nos i1568 & t'STS.};t;

¶51

expenditure aiong with their written explanation on 07.02.2020 stating that they could not file the statement of election expenditure within the stipulated time, since they used to visit the hospitals at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, the petitioners in the third week of March, 2020, approached the answering respondent showing receipt dated 1 1.02.2019 of fiting final account ofelection expenditure and requested him to enquire into the same. T'hen, he caused enquiry and found the copies of final accounts ofelection expenditure ofthe petitioners. Thereafter, he addressed letter dated 03.04.2020 to respondent No.l explaining the facts and finding tl.re copies of the accounts of election expenditure subrritted by the petitioners with a request to cancel the impugned proceedings. 11 is also asserteci that a memo dated 26.03.2020 was issued to the then Senior Assistant, T. Nagaraju, of erstwhile MPDO Office to show the reason for not entering the petitioners' names in online portal of respondent No.l in the list of candidates, who had submitted the statement of election expenditure. The said Senior Assistant gave explanation on 27.03.2020 that there was lapse on his part in updating the web portal as he is a Cancer patient and in view of series of elections. Thereafter, respondent No.l had addressed a letter to respondent No.3 - District Collector, Ra.janna Sircilla, to verifl,' the^veracity' of the petitiorrers' clair.n.^'ilrerr, vide report dated 27.06.2020,

¶52

CKR,^J W.P.Nos.14568^{& I4575 of 2020}

¶53

¶54

respondent^{No'3 after conductingenquiryreportedthat as a} matter of^{fact, the petitioners had submittedthe statementsol} election expenditure^{as claimed by them and there was lapse on} the part of^{the Officerconcernedin updating the recordand} forwarding the^{same to respondentNo' 1'}

¶55

Sri G. Vidya Sagar'^{learnedSenior Counsel appearingfor} respondent No.l^{would submitthat there is no power conferred} on respondent No.l to review^{the orderpassed in terms of} Section 23 ofthe Telangana^{PanchayatRaj Act, 1994, and that in} response to the show cause notices, the^{petitionersdid not choose} to offer explanation and on the contrary, as per the^counter- affidavit of respondent No.5, initially, the^petitioners submitted that on account of ill-health, the statements of election expenditure were not sr"rbmitted and further,, the report of respondent No.3 is subsequent to the passing ol the impugned proceedings.

¶56

In view of the above narrated situation and as per the pleadings before this Court, as a matter of fact, though the petitioners had submitted the statements of election expenditure along with tl.re explanation dated 01 .02.2020, they subrnitted the statements of election expenditure within-the stipulated time. On further enquiry, it was found that as a matter of fact, statements of election expenditure were submitted as far back as on

¶57

CKR, J w P Nos 14568 & 1.1s75 o12020

¶58

¶59

11.02.2019 i.e., within the stipulated period of 45 da1,s. Inasmuch as the lapse is on the part of respondent No.5, who u,as officiating at the relevant point of time, in not complying with Rules 103 ar.rd 104 of the Rules, the petitior.rers could not be disqualified in terms of Section 23 of the Act. It rnay be kept in mind that the petitioners are elected Ward Mernbers of Jillela Grarr Panchayat and they are entitled to complete their term of Olfice as per the scheme of elections.

¶60

In those circumstances, though respondent No.1 has no review jurisdiction, there being no other alternative remedy for the petitioners and there being patent illegality and error, which is apparent from the record and inasrnuch as respondent No.l passed the impugned orders or.r account of lapse orr the part of its subordinate Olllcels in lurnishing correct data, the inrpugned ordcrs are set aside and these Writ Petitions are allowed with the further direction to respondent No.l to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the factual aspects emerged in the process ofenquiry conducted by respondent No.3.

¶61

Miscellaneous applications, if any pendir.rg, shall also stand

¶62

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

SD/-K.AM ASSISTANT^REG RAR //TRUE^COPY//' SECTI OFFICER

¶64

To, 'ffi Tf^{l"J:ild,,Iifl g:pliEi,:$#ifiT:::#::::l::'J"'#} 2. The^{Commissioner, Kur} Officer,^HYderabad'

¶65

The District Collector and District Election Officer, Rajanna Sircilla Distt'ict. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶66

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Thangallapalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶67

The Grampanchayat, Jillalla, Thangalapalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District. 7. One CC to Sri T. Surya Satish, Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

One CC to Sri P. Sudheer Rao, S.C. For Election Commission (OPUC) 9. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶69

One CC to Sri G. Narender Reddy, S.C. For GPP/II/PP/ZPP (OPUC)

¶70

1 1. Two CD Copies.

IVP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611012020

COMMON ORDER

1HE S14
t'
Io-
io 03 Noy2020 >i
-i
-t'
,.-1

¶76

W.P. NOs. 14568 AND 14575 OF 2020

¶77

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS

¶78

r]
l -,/
7n)o,

Kandukuri Padma v. The Telangana State Election Commission and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandukuri Padma v. The Telangana State Election Commission and 5 others

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

Sri Nagarjuna Degree College Vs The State of Telangana

J. Vijendar Vs The Osmania University

Mohammad Imran Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Dubba Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Md. Razia.Bee Vs The State of Telangana

Madharapu Taravva , Tara Vs The Telangana State Election Commission and 5 others