The High Court of Telangana dismissed three writ petitions challenging the disqualification of Ward Members for failing to submit election expenditure accounts within the stipulated time.
The writ petitions were dismissed being devoid of merit with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)
IUONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION Nos. 6715, 7446 AND 775't OF 2020
WP. No. 6715 of 2020:
Between:
Mohammad lmran, S/o. I\ilohammad Ankus, Age 30 Years, Occ: Ward [,4ember, R/o. H.No. 4-73, Pedhapur Village, Julapalli Ir/andal, Peddapalli (Karimnagar) District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article226 ofihe constitutionof lndia praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased to issue an order ordirectionmore parlicularlyone in the natureof writ of mandamus or any other appropriatewrit declaringthe action of the respondent No.3, in pissing tne order in proceedings No 2774ITSECpR/Julapatte/Gps/2019;(34), dated: 10tO3t2O2O, through whichdeclaring. the p.iit,onJr is ineligible for dperiodof 3 years from the dateof issueof the orderto [oni"it ,nv eleciionto be held any office under TelanganaPanchavatRsl^A:I3018 andalsoseizedtoholdtheexistingofficethatiswardmemberofT.nwardof F.or,ip* Grampanchayat, Julapalii Mandal, PeddapalliDistrict, is .nothingbut ,r-n,irrrv, illegal,null uno-roio and violativeof principlesof natural justice and also uiotutir" of R-rticles14, 19 and 21 of the Constitutionof lndia'
IA NO :1 OF 2020
Petition underSection151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavitfited in .rpplti oi tr," p"iition,-tr," nior' court may be pleasedto suspend orderspassednV irt" tp'itO"llllg 1:in proceedings No 2774lTSEC- phliuiaparrelCpslZOtstS+i, Jrt"O'iOtOStZo2o1therebv direct the respondentsto permit thepetitioner ln iis;;;;ing his duties ^ut'idmemberof 7th ward of Flihrpwgiam panchayat of Jul;pallimandal of Peddapalli District'
Contd" "'
2
WRIT PETITION No. 7446 OF 2020
Between:
lskilla Varalaxmi @ E. Varalaxmi,W/o. lskilla Naresh,Age 24 Years, Occ. 1 1th Ward Memb-er, Rl/o. H.No.8-4111 ,Pedhapurvillage, Julapalli Mandal, Peddapalli ( Karimnaga| District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No.3, inpassing the order in proceedings No.2774lTSEC-PR/Julapalle/GPs/201 9(40), dated: 1 0/03/2020, 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 Telangana Panchayat Raj Act 2018 and also seized to hold the existing office that is ward member of'l 1rh ward of Pedhapur gram panchayat, lulapalli mandal, Peddapalli district, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of naturaljustice and also violative of Articles'14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, conseguently the said proceedings may be set a side.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
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 pleased to suspend orders passed by the respondent No.3, in proceedings No.2774lTSEC-pR /Julapalle/GPs 12019(40), dated: 1010312020, thereby direct the respondents to permit the petitioner in discharging his duties as ward member of 1 1rr' ward of pedhapur gram panchayath of Julapalli N/andal of Peddapalli District.
WRIT PETITI ON No.7751 OF 2020
Between:
Ranaveni Sharada,... W/o. . Qwamy_, - Age: 36 Years, Occ- 3rd Ward Member, R/o. Chee malapet Village, Julapalli Mandal, Peddapalli (Karimnagar) District
...PETITIONER
AND
3
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre -2260f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fireolr'"r",,,'ii" High court may be preased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in'the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ decraring t e action or ir,e'resp^ondent No.3, in passing the order in proceedings No.2774lTSEt pnTJrrrp"ri"icps/20i 9(07), dated: .i 0-03-2020, through which decraring the petitioner is rner,:jioie ror a period of 3 years from the date of issue of the orde.r to^ -contest un/ 6i".tion to be herd any office under Telangana Panchayat Raj Act 2018 ano ats6 r;;;i" hord the existing office that is ward member of 03'd ward of cheemarapet gram panchayat, Jurapa[i mandar, Peddapalli district, is nothing but arbitrary, iilelar, nuil and void and viorative of principles of natural justice and also vioiative-of Arti"l", tq, ts aia'zr-Li tnu constitution of lndia, consequenfly the said proceedings may be set a side, and to pass
lA NO; 1 OF 2020
. Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend orders passed by the respondent No.3, in proceedings No.2774lTSECPRThlapalle/GPs/2019(07), dated.'10-03-2020, thereby direct the respondents to permit the petitioner in discharging his duties as ward memeber of 03rd ward of Cheemalapet grampanchayath of Julapalli mandal of Peddapalli dlstrict and topass
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VENUMADHAV
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2&4:
GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRIG. VIDYA SAGAR, SENIOR COUNSELFOR
SRI P. SUDHEER RAO
Counsel for the RespondentNo.4 and 5: SRIG. NARENDERREDDY,
STANDING COUNSELFORGRAM PANCHAYAT
The Court madethe following:COMMON ORDER
.I'HE HO'BLE SIiI.IT S'TICE CIIALLA KODA\DA RA\I \ RIT PE TITIONNos.67l57416 and 7751of 2020
COM MONORDER:
ln all these WritPetitions, petitionersquestioned proceedings dated 10.03.2020issued by respondentNo'3 Telangana State Election Commission,rep. by its Secretary, tlyderabad, disqualrtying them as Ward Members oltheir rcspectiVe Cram Pzrnchavats.
2.'fhe petitioners contested and were elected as Ward Members in the elections conductcd on 30.01.2019. fhey are required to submit the election expenditure on or bcfbre 15.03.2019, however, they did not do so, resulting in, issuance ol' shor,v cause notices datcd ll.ll.20l9, lor r,,,hich, they submittecl cxplanation, along with the accor,rnt of election expenditi-rrc in the prescribed format, stating that they were unwell, thereby, sought cor.rdonation of delay. Thereafter, respondent No.3, not satisfied with the reasons stated therefbr, rejected the explanation and passed the impugned orders in terms of Section 23 or trre 'felangana Cram panchayar Act, 20ltt (lbr sl.rorr .the Act,), read with Rules 106(3) and 106(7) ol. the Telangana panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elecrions) Rules, 201 g (lbr short ,the Rules,)
2
*., ""..a2 t s_zcqo_zz StELl
disqualifting them frorn rhe post of Ward Member and debarring them from conresting in any election for a period olthree years.
CI(R,J w.P Nos 67157'1'16?751 of2020
3
sLrbstantiatetheir illness. He also submitsthat Rules103 and 106 read togetherrequirethe authoritiesto be vigilant and intimate the State ElectionCommissiorr after expiry of the timespecified in Section 238of the Act. The respondents,havingt.ailed to take such actiot.t,cannottake advantage of their lapse and under Section 103, the authoritiesare given leeway, as such,the petitioners are also required tobe extendedthe same and non-submission ofaccountof electionexpenses be excused.
CI(R,.] W.P Nos.67l5 7/\46 7751 ot 2O2A
4
CIi R, J rU P N.s 6715 741b 7751 ot 2O2A
5
ceased to hotd otflce witli imrnediateefl'ect and publishthe ordcr in the Official Gazette.
8" It r.nay be noted that this Cor"rrt does not sit as an appellate Court, hence, rvhile exercising the power ofjLrdicial review, this Court shall rlot interfere with the decision of the Election Commission. For the purpose of clarity, this Court may notice the Ianguage used, more particr"rlarly, in Sections 231 and 238 of the Act. The word 'shall' used in Sections 237 and 238 leaves no rlanner of doubt that there is a duty cast on the contesting candidate to maintain account ol the election expenditure and further submit the same in the prescribed fbrm w,ithin the stipulated time. I lorvever, as per Section 23 of the Act, if a candidate does not contply with the submission of election expenses within 45 davs, if the State Election Cornmission is satisi-ied that the candidate has no good reason or.iustificatiorr for the lailure, it shall declare such candidate ineligible.
0
l0(a). The expenditure is required to be subrnitted by the Mer.r.rbers of the Gram Panchavat to MPDO in tenns of Rule 103(2). I-lowever, there is no dutv cast on MPDO or the other autlioritics to issue notice to the candidates calling lor subtnission of expenditure details. It is the duty cast upon the petitioners to subrnit the election expenditure details a" mandated and the MPDO to forward the sarne to the State Election Commission as soon as the same is received bv him.
l0(b). Further, there is a duty'cast on the N'IPDO or the Chief Executir,'e Officer and other specified Offlcers to subnrit a report to tlrc Statc Election Corrmission specifj'ing the particr-rlals as rrenlioned in Rule 106( l). It is only olt reccipt o l' suclr infbrmation, the duty of the State Election Comtlissionwould cornrnence. In vieu' of the sanre, not initiatingacticttt t-tptl t-t sucll
CKR, J W P.Nos 6715 7416-7751 ol2o2A
7
authorities by the State E,lectionComtnissiot.r does not enttre10 the benefit ofthe petitioners.
1 l. Even assuming that there is any dela1, on thepart ofthe authorities, the same would not absolve thepetitioners iiomthe conditiorr irnposed b;- the statute to subntit election expenditure riithin the stipLllated tirre. ilrc time grantccl to the petitioners tbr submitting explanation fbr the delayed submission of the e lectior.r expenclilr-rre is to enablc tlie Statc Election Cor.r.rn.rission to gather, collect and keep the correct accoLlnt of the election expencliture in discharge of its statr-rtory functions of ensuring adherence to notification No. I 81/ISEC-Ll20l8 dated 1 8.06.201 8 o1' fixing the limits of expenditure.
B
W.P Nos.67tS ?446 ?7Sl :\E;l
election expenses, if the sarne was not furnished earlier, to the MPDO concerned or the other authorized officer, who in turn,, shall forward the same to the State Election Cornmission.
l3' The argume,t of the learned counsel for the petitioners that submission of election expenditure after receipt of notice in terms of Rule 106(5) satisfies the requirement as mandated, hence, a candidate cannot be disqualified, does not cor.nrnend acceptance. A careful leading ol the provisions of the Act and tl.re Rules. more particularly, Rules 106(3) to 106(7) does not lead ro such conclusior.r. Rule 106(4) caregorically states thar in the evenr of there being delav in subntission ol election expenditurc r,r,ithin the tirre or in tlte rranner required bv the Act and thc Rules, the luotice is required to be issued calling for explanation why the candidate shall not be disqualified and declared to have ceased to hold the office. Calling upon the candidate to submit explar.ration and granting 20 days'time under Rule 106 (5) is only for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance by a candidate contesting the election as mandated in terms of Sections 231 and 238 of the Act. Any other interpretation would only defeat the intention of the legislature irr rnaking the provisions of the Act.
CKR, J w.P.Nos.6?15-?4467751ol 2O2O
9
limitedfor considerationof the failure of the candidate to comply with the mandatoryrequirementof submitting the election expendituredetails' In other words, there is no scope or powerto the StateElectionCommissionto condonethe delay' exceptfbr the rcason,which, in its opinion,that non-submissionof the statement ofelection expenditure by a candidate was genuine and for good reason.In the circumstances,the question of further providing an opportunityto the candidatesby conducting enquiry would not arise.
Miscellarreous applications, if any pending, shall stand
To,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
n
SD/.K.O IM ASSISTANT E //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER
,-"i"\
Prk ,'
m."r/
HIGH COURT
DATED:05/10/2020
COMMON ORDER
WP. Nos. 6715,7446 AND 7751 ot2020
1 ti E s I4
)
e
oo 16 Nov 2m0 oZ
.L
't *
iJAT c\1r,
I
Dismissing the Writ Petitions without costs.
a
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State Election Commission is entitled to declare Ward Members ineligible and disqualify them for 3 years for failing to submit election expenditure accounts.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammad Imran
Iskillapalli Varalakshmi
Ranaveni Sharada
State of Telangana
District Collector cum District Election Authority
Telangana State Election Commission
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
