Dismissed

Iskilla Varalaxmi , E. Varalaxmi v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC5 Oct 2020WP/7446/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three ward members challenged their disqualification for failing to submit election expenditure accounts within the statutory limit. The High Court held the disqualification was lawful, rejecting the claim for condonation of delay under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act and relevant rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed declaring the disqualification orders valid and legal.

Iskilla Varalaxmi , E. Varalaxmi Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IUONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION Nos. 6715, 7446 AND 775't OF 2020

¶6

WP. No. 6715 of 2020:

¶7

Between:

¶8

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.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, represented by lts Principal Secretary to the Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The District Collector cum District Election Authority, Peddapalli District, Peddapalli.

¶13

3 Telangana State Election Commission, Represented by its Secretary, 1st floor, DTCP Building, Opposite PTl, AC Guards, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Julapalli^tr,/andal, Julapalli, Peddapalli District.

¶15

5 The Pedhapur Gram Panchayath, Represented by^{its Panchayath Secretary,} Pedhapur Village, Julapalli Mandal, Peddapalli^District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{ihe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue an order or^{directionmore parlicularlyone in the natureof writ of} mandamus or any other appropriate^{writ declaringthe action of the respondent} No.3, in pissing tne order in proceedings No 2774ITSECpR/Julapatte/Gps/2019;(34), dated: 10tO3t2O2O, through which^{declaring. the} p.iit,onJr is ineligible for d^{periodof 3 years from the dateof issueof the orderto} [oni"it ,nv eleciion^{to be held any office under TelanganaPanchavatRsl^A:I3018} andalsoseizedtoholdtheexistingofficethatiswardmemberofT.nwardof F.or,ip* Gram^{panchayat, Julapalii Mandal, PeddapalliDistrict, is} .nothing^but ,r-n,irrrv, illegal,^{null uno-roio and violativeof principlesof natural justice and also} uiotutir" of R-rticles^{14, 19 and 21 of the Constitutionof lndia'}

¶18

IA NO :1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under^{Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{fited in .rpplti oi tr," p"iition,-tr," nior' court may be pleasedto} suspend orders^{passednV irt" tp'itO"llllg} 1:^{in proceedings No 2774lTSEC-} phliuiaparrelCpslZOtstS+i, Jrt"O'^{iOtOStZo2o1therebv direct the respondentsto} permit the^{petitioner ln iis;;;;ing his duties} ^ut^{'idmemberof 7th ward of} Flihrpw^{giam panchayat of Jul;pallimandal of Peddapalli District'}

¶20

Contd" "'

¶21

¶22

WRIT PETITION No. 7446 OF 2020

¶23

Between:

¶24

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.

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

AND

¶27

1 The State of Telangana, represented by^{its Principal Secretary to the Panchayat} Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶28

2 The District Collector cum District Election^{Authority, PeddapalliDistrict,} Peddapalli.

¶29

3 Telangana State Election Commission, Represented by^{its Secretary,1st floor,} DTCPbuilding, Opposite PTl, AC Guards,^Hyderabad.

¶30

4 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer,^{Julapalli Mandal, Julapalli,} Peddapalli District.

¶31

5 The Pedhapur Gram Panchayath, Represented by its^{PanchayathSecretary,} Pedhapur Village, Julapalli Mandal, Peddapalli District.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue an order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No.3, in^passing 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 natural^justice and also violative of Articles^'14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, conseguently the said proceedings may be set a side.

¶34

lA NO: 1 OF 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 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.

¶36

WRIT PETITI ON No.7751 OF 2020

¶37

Between:

¶38

Ranaveni Sharada,... W/o. . Qwamy_, - Age: 36 Years, Occ- 3rd Ward Member, R/o. Chee malapet Village, Julapalli Mandal, Peddapalli (Karimnagar) District

...PETITIONER

AND

fhe State of Telar

¶43

D e p a n m e ri', s!i?J,gr,.,.:1, J,:&,,0J,i,'rir:gt:i s e cre ra ry to rh e pa n cha ya r Raj

¶44

2, The Distrrct Coilect peooapiffi'^{'-"-'-tor,cum District} Electron Authority, peddapalli Disrrtcr,

¶45

'^{J?38'3.],?.:"8:ffi} i%ti?J,'f,ru?l:,.*:?ffi :,x,sdt v^{it s s e c rera} ry, 1 s t, o o r,

¶46

t l:3#3:flii'n?[T'o Deveropment orricer, Jurapari Manda r, Juraparri,

¶47

The Cheemlapet Gram panchayath. Representt crreemirapliVlil{'e, .ruraparri Mandat. ,"oorr;fl, oJJlsPanchayath Secretary,

¶48

...RESPONDENTS

¶49

Petition under Articre -226^{0f 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

¶50

lA NO; 1 OF 2020

¶51

. 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 gram^panchayath of Julapalli mandal of Peddapalli dlstrict and to^pass

¶52

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VENUMADHAV

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2&4:

¶54

GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI^{G. VIDYA SAGAR, SENIOR COUNSELFOR}

¶56

SRI P. SUDHEER RAO

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4 and 5: SRIG. NARENDERREDDY,}

¶58

STANDING COUNSEL^{FORGRAM PANCHAYAT}

¶59

The Court made^{the following:COMMON ORDER}

¶60

.I'HE HO'BLE SIiI.IT S'TICE CIIALLA KODA\DA RA\I \ RIT PE TITION^{Nos.67l57416 and 7751of 2020}

¶61

COM MON^ORDER:

¶62

ln all these Writ^{Petitions, petitionersquestioned} proceedings dated 10.03.2020^{issued by respondentNo'3} Telangana State Election Commission,^{rep. by its Secretary,} tlyderabad, disqualrtying them as Ward Members ol^their rcspectiVe Cram Pzrnchavats.

¶63

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,)

¶64

¶65

*., ""..a2 t s_zcqo_zz StELl

¶66

disqualifting them frorn rhe post of Ward Member and debarring them from conresting in any election for a period olthree years.

¶67

Counter-affidavits are filed by respondent No.3 as well as respondent No.4 Mandal Parishad Developntent Ofllcer (MPDO), Julapalli Mandal, peddapalli District

¶68

Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners had failed to subrnit the account of election expenditure within 45 days, once the show cause notices are issued to the petitioners granting 20 days'tin.re to submit the account of election expenditure and as there is no dispute that the same was complied with by the petitioners, requirement of submitting the accourlr of election expenditure within 45 days has becn waived b1respondent No.3, as, it is specificalll, tlentioned in the shor.v cause ,otices itself that il the petitioners failed to submit the same within 20 davs'time, action would be taken against thern, ar.rd thus, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, and in the circumstances, the plea taken by the petitioners in response to the show cause notices about their being unwell would have no consequence. He further submits that had the enquiry been conducted in terms of Rule 106(7) of the Rules, the petitioners would have an opportunity to submit medicat record to

¶69

CI(R,^J w.P Nos 6715^{7'1'16?751 of2020}

¶70

¶71

sLrbstantiate^{their illness. He also submitsthat Rules103 and 106} read together^{requirethe authoritiesto be vigilant and intimate} the State Election^{Commissiorr after expiry of the timespecified} in Section 238^{of the Act. The respondents,havingt.ailed to take} such actiot.t,^{cannottake advantage of their lapse and under} Section 103, the authorities^{are given leeway, as such,the} petitioners are also required to^{be extendedthe same and} non-submission ofaccount^{of electionexpenses be excused.}

¶72

Sri G. Narendcr Redd1,, learned Starrding Counsel appearing fbr respondent No.4 would subrnit tliat the petitioners sLrbnritted cxplanation alonrr u ith the accoLutt ol election expenditure to respondent No.3 only' afier notice and they l.rave tirlfilled their statutorl, duty of forwarding the same to respondent No.3. He would further submit that even assuming that there is any delay on the part of responder.rt No.4 in intimating respondent No.3 about the candidates not submitting the account of election expenses as mandated under Section 103. the sante r.l.ould not enure to the benefit of the petitioners as they are required to submit the account of election expenditure within the stipulated tllllc He would firrtlier submit tl.rat respondent No,4 perfbrmed his dury of ibrwarding the accounr of election expenditure of the petirioners ro respondent No.3 as soon aS thel, W.ere received.

¶73

CI(R,.] W.P Nos.67l5 7/\46 7751 ot 2O2A

¶74

¶75

Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing lor respondent No.3, would assert that the interpretation which is sor.rght to be placed by the petitioners is errotreous and contrarv to the intention of the Legislature. He ll,ould further assert that failurc to conrply' u,ith the subn'rission ol account o1' clection expenditure, as rrandated r.rnder the provisions ol'lau, r,iould lead to conseclLrential procccdings. as such, there is no possibilitl lirr an.u', leewal,to be given even fbr respondent No.3. He would also assert that the Rules do not contemplate for causing an enquiry and it is lefi entirely to the discretior.r of the Election Corrmission. I-{e draws the attention of tl.re Court to the lar.rguage employed in Rule 106(7) of the Rules, according to rvhich, after considering the representation subrnitted by the candidate and the colnmerlts made by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer or Clrief Executive Officer of Zilla Pra.ja Parishad as the case may be, and after such enquiry as it thinks fit, if the State Election Commission is satisfied that the candidate has rro good reason or justification for the failure, the Commissiorr sliall declare hinilher, by an order made under Sectiorr 23 o1' the Act, to be ineligible fbr a period of three years, fiorn the date of the^said order, to contest any electiorr held for any office^{under ihe Act} and if he/she is arr elected candidate,^{to'declare him/herto have}

¶76

CIi R, J rU P N.s 6715 741b 7751 ot 2O2A

¶77

¶78

ceased to hotd otflce witli imrnediate^{efl'ect and publishthe ordcr} in the Official Gazette.

¶79

Having regard to the respective submissions, the^qr"restion, which is required 1o be considered, is the scope of interference by this Court u,ith respect to tl.re decision of respondent No.3 and whether there is anv arbitrariness or illesalitv in the orders irnpugned.

¶80

8" It r.nay be noted that this Cor"rrt does not sit as an appellate Court, hence, rvhile exercising the power of^jLrdicial 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.

¶81

¶82

Section 237 of the Act clearly mandates and defines as to what are the election expenses. The pro-forma of account of election expenditure was notified in Circular dated 21.05.2018 and it is clear and elaborate. There is no dispute that the petitioners had failed to cornply with the ntandatory subntission of the details of clection expenditure to respondent No.zl in terrns of Section 238 r.r,ithin the stipulated tirne of^zl5 days.

¶83

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.

¶84

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 Comtlission^would cornrnence. In vieu' of the sanre, not initiating^{acticttt t-tptl t-t sucll}

¶85

CKR, J W P.Nos 6715 7416-7751 ol2o2A

¶86

¶87

authorities by the State E,lection^{Comtnissiot.r does not enttre10} the benefit ofthe petitioners.

¶88

1 l. Even assuming that there is any dela1, on the^part of^the authorities, the same would not absolve the^petitioners iiom^the 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.

¶89

In the present case, it is the case of respondent No.3 that the report in terms of^.Rule 1 06( l ) il as received on 1 6. 1 0.201 9 and afier examining the sarne in terms of Rule 106(3), it had issued notice in terrns of Rule 106(4). On 11.11.2019, the show cause noticcs cirrrc to bc issr-rcd to tlte petitioners. ln sucl-r circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any delay llt issuing the notice on facts. On receipt of such notice, the candidate is required to submit a reply explaining the reasons or justification for not submitting the election expenditure within the stipulated lime and further submit the complete account of

¶90

¶91

W.P Nos.67tS ?446 ?7Sl :\E;l

¶92

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.

¶93

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.

¶94

As contended by the learned Senior Counsel,^{the scopeof} enquiry in terrns of Rule 106(7) is limited,^{as, the enquirf is}

¶95

CKR, J w.P.Nos.6?15-?446^{7751ol 2O2O}

¶96

¶97

limited^{for considerationof the failure of the candidate to comply} with the mandatory^{requirementof submitting the election} expenditure^{details' In other words, there is no scope or powerto} the State^{ElectionCommissionto condonethe delay' exceptfbr} the rcason,^{which, in its opinion,that non-submissionof the} statement of^{election expenditure by a candidate was genuine and} for good reason.^{In the circumstances,the question of further} providing an opportunity^{to the candidatesby conducting enquiry} would not arise.

¶98

Assuming that there is some^{possibility with respect to such} ".. enquiry being conducted in the present case on hand, the^finding recorded by respondent No.3 in the orders impugned with respect to thc petitioners not substantialing thcir alleged illness by' placing on record the required supporting material is a finding of l'act and there is no scope lbr proi,iding an1 lurther opportunity', as. ncithcr the'Act nor thc R.ulcs contcmplatc the santc.

¶99