This Interlocutory Application is filed by the Appellant seeking to condone delay of 570 days in filing the present Writ Appeal against the order, dated
17.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10195 of 2019 dismissing the same.
1-a. He sought to condone the delay on the following grounds:-
i) He sustained leg fracture and back pain in an accident on 24.11.2019 and underwent treatment. He took complete bed rest under the supervision of
the doctor from 25.11.2019 to 24.01.2020.
ii) Thereafter also, he underwent treatment for back pain and viral fever from 02.02.2020 to 10.04.2020 due to which he was not in a position to walk
for some period. In proof of the same, he also filed Medical Certificates.
iii) He was also tested positive with Corona in the last week of July, 2020.
iv) In the 3rd week of March, 2020, Lockdown was imposed and immediately after the unlock, he preferred the Appeal along with this Interlocutory
Application seeking to condone the delay in filing the present Writ Appeal.
v) He further submits that the non-filing of the present Appeal within time is only due to prolonged illness but not due to negligence.
1-b. With the said submissions, the Appellant seeks to allow the present Interlocutory application. However, respondents have opposed the same on
the ground that there is unexplained long delay in preferring the appeal.
1-c. It is relevant to note that there is no dispute with regard to imposition of Lockdown and considering the said circumstances, this Court and the
Apex Court have extended the period of Limitation for filing Appeals etc. The Appellant herein has specifically pleaded that he met with an accident,
tested positive with Corona. He has specifically mentioned the dates etc.
1-d. Considering the said facts and having satisfied with the said reasons, this Interlocutory Application is allowed as prayed for.
W.A.No.331 OF 2021
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order, dated 17.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.10195 of 2019 dismissing the same, by the learned Single
Judge, the Appellant filed this Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
3. Heard Sri Dr.Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant, Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Sudheer
Rao, learned standing counsel appearing for 1st respondent/the State Election Commissioner; Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and
Rural Development (Telangana) appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5/State of Telangana, the District Collector, Nagarkurnool District, the
Returning Officer, Nagarkurnool Mandal and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool Mandal; learned Government Pleader for Home
appearing for the 6th respondent/The Superintendent of Police and Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.
Perused the record.
4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
i) The Appellant herein filed the above Writ Petition to declare the impugned Notification No.1796/TSEC-PR/2019, dated 04.05.2019 issued by the 1st
respondent as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Telangana
Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules 2018 ( for short, ‘the Rules’), set aside the said Notification and confirm the declaration of
Appellant’s election as Member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC), Gaggalapally Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal and District,
as valid.
ii) On 20.04.2019, the 1st respondent had issued Notification to conduct elections to Members of MPTC and ZPTC in the State of Telangana.
iii) The election notice for the first phase which includes Gaggalapally MPTC in Nagarkurnool Mandal and District, was issued on 22.04.2019 in terms
of Rule 5 of the Rules.
iv) 24.04.2019 was the last date for filing nominations, 26.05.2019 was the date for scrutiny and the last date for withdrawal of the candidature was on
28.04.2019.
v) On 22.04.2019, the Appellant, the 7th respondent and another filed nominations in the said elections. One of the said three candidates withdrew his
nomination within the stipulated time for withdrawal and thereafter, the Appellant and the 7th respondent were in fray.
vi) According to the Appellant, the 7th respondent had voluntarily withdrew nomination on 28.04.2019. Thereafter, since the Appellant, being the sole
contestant, was declared as elected for the post of MPTC unanimously, and Form-X was issued to him.
vii) On 29.04.2019, the 7th respondent had given a complaint to the 4th respondent alleging that he was abducted and forcibly made to withdraw from
the contest for the election to the post of MPTC by the Appellant and others. The Appellant had also offered him bribe of Rs.20,00,000/- and even
paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for his withdrawal from the contest.
viii) The Appellant had also made a complaint on 30.04.2019 to the 3rd respondent, denying the allegations levelled against him.
ix) There was protest in the village alleging foul play played by certain influential persons in order to secure withdrawal of the candidature of the 7th
respondent.
x) The said abuse of money, power and undue influence to secure withdrawal of candidature of the 7th respondent was brought to the notice of the
1st respondent and also published in the newspapers. In this regard, the 1st respondent, vide letter dated 30.04.2019, directed the 3rd and 6th
respondents to enquire into the matter and send a report.
xi) The 3rd respondent had submitted a report dated 01.05.2019 on the events took place in the MPTC Elections of Gaggalapally which alludes the
abuse of force/influence/money/ power leading to withdrawal of the candidature of the 7th respondent. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.98 of 2019 was
also registered.
xii) Considering the entire facts including the report, dated 01.05.2019, the 1st respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Article 243-K of the
Constitution of India and Rule 6 of the Rules, issued the impugned Notification, dated 04.05.2019 declaring the election process in respect of
Gaggalapally MPTC of Nagarkarnool Mandal and District, as void.
xiii) Challenging the same, the Appellant herein had filed the above said Writ Petition on the following grounds:-
a) The impugned Notification issued by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction.
b) Once the Form-X, declaring the election of the Appellant is issued as per Rule-15 of the Rules, by the Election Officer, the 1st respondent becomes
functus officio and it is for the duly constituted Election Tribunal to decide all the questions relating to disqualification and corrupt practices etc.,
c) 1st respondent, instead of relegating the 7th Respondent to approach the appropriate Forum for adjudication of his grievance, ordered for an enquiry
and issued the impugned Notification dated 04.05.2019 which is illegal.
d) The 1st respondent has no power to order enquiry suo-moto in an election matter but it is the Election Tribunal which has the power under Rule 12
of the Rules to declare the election of the returned candidate, as void.
5. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESOPNDENT NOs.1 AND 7
i) The election process was not concluded and Form-X was not issued to the Appellant. Therefore, the 1st respondent did not become functus officio
under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India.
ii) Section 211 of the Act deals with corrupt practices including bribery.
iii) In exercise of the power under Section 197 of the Act, the 1st respondent had issued directives dated 08.01.2019 and 28.04.2019, as per which, if
there is only one nominated candidate is published in the list of contesting candidates in Form-IX, Returning Officer will declare such candidate as duly
elected in Form-X and the same will be sent to the State Election Authority and District Election Authority.
iv) The Returning Officers concerned with MPTC/ZPTC elections, shall declare the result of the unanimously elected person only after obtaining
clearance from the District Collector and District Election Authority. The District Election Authority, in turn, is required to obtain further instructions
from the State Election Authority in all cases where use of undue influence is evidenced.
v) The Returning Officer neither referred the matter to the District Election Authority nor any clearance accorded by the 3rd respondent. Therefore,
the Form X declaration was not in compliance of law and it was not issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the said election process was not concluded.
vi) In exercise of the powers conferred under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India and Rule 6 of the Rules, the impugned Notification was issued
declaring the subject election as void. Therefore, there is no error in it.
FINDING OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
6. The learned Single Judge, referring to the various provisions of the Act, Rules and Article 243-K of the Constitution of India and also considering
the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, dismissed the said Writ Petition holding that the election process was not
concluded as the Form-X was not issued to the Appellant. Learned Single Judge, on consideration of the entire facts, held that when once Form-X
declaration is not issued to the Appellant, it is to be construed that the election result is not declared, as such it is within the plenary power and
jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to declare the election as void.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
8. Dr. Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Appellant herein raised several grounds, the learned
Single Judge failed to consider same and dismissed the writ petition erroneously. The finding of the learned Single Judge that Form-X was not issued
on the Appellant is erroneous and without considering the record. Since the 4th respondent did not dispute his signature on the Form-X, the election
process was concluded. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Form-X was not issued to the Appellant and therefore, the election
process was not concluded, is erroneous.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
9. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel, learned Government Pleaders and Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents,
referring to the findings in the impugned order, would submit that the learned Single Judge has considered all the contentions of the parties referring
relevant provisions of the Act, Rules, Articles of Constitution of India and the principles laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court, dismissed
the Writ Petition. It is a well considered and reasoned order and there is no error in it. With the said contentions, they sought to dismiss the present
Writ Appeal.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
10. As per Section 197 of the Act, the State Election Commission has the power to issue directions to the Commissioner, District Collector or any
Officer or Servant of the Government and the Panchayat Raj Institutions so as to ensure efficient conduct of the elections under the Act. There were
instances in the past when vested interests manipulated the election process by auctioning of posts or by intimidating candidates not to file nomination
or forcible withdrawal of other candidates. Therefore, State Election Commission to guard against the evil designs of vested interests to manipulate the
election process by indulging in such malpractices by invoking the said provision, had issued certain directives dated 08.01.2019 and 28.04.2019. As
per which, if only one validly nominated candidate is published in the list of contesting candidates in Form-IX, the Returning Officer will declare such
candidate as duly elected in Form-X, and send the same to the State Election Commission, Election Authority and District Election Authority. The
Returning Officers concerned with election of MPTCs and ZPTCs shall declare the result of the unanimous election to the post of MPTC or ZPTC
only after obtaining clearance from the District Collector and the District Election Authority. In all such cases, the District Collector and the District
Election Authority shall satisfy themselves on the voluntary nature of the unanimous election before issuing clearance to declare results. In all cases,
where auctioning or use of undue influence is evidenced, the District Election Authority shall obtain necessary instructions from the State Election
Commission for further action.
11. On 29.04.2019, the 7th respondent had lodged a complaint with the 3rd respondent alleging that the Appellant along with others abducted him and
threatened to withdraw his nomination. The Appellant had also offered an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as bribe and paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. In
this regard, a case in Cr.No.98 of 2019 was also registered. The said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was deposited with the police, by the 7th respondent.
12. The Appellant had also lodged a complaint with the 3rd respondent denying the allegations made by the 7th respondent. The said facts were also
published in the newspapers.
13. After conducting an enquiry in the village, the 5th respondent had submitted a report dated 30.04.2019. The 6th respondent had also submitted his
report stating that a case was registered in Cr.No.98 of 2019 against the appellant and the alleged bribe amount was deposited with the police.
Considering the entire facts, including the above said complaints, dated 29.04.2019 of the 7th respondent, 30.04.2019 of the Appellant, report dated
30.04.2019 of the 5th respondent and also report dated 30.04.2019 of the 6th respondent, the 3rd respondent had submitted his report dated 01.05.2019
to the 1st respondent with a request to issue necessary directions regarding declaring the result of Gaggalapally Village MPTC under the unanimous
category. Considering the said facts and also coming to the conclusion that the election process was not concluded as Form â€"X was not served on
the Appellant and also the fact of the involvement of Rs.10,00,000/- which was offered as bribe to the 7th respondent, the 1st respondent, in exercise
of the powers conferred under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India and Rule 6 of the Rules, issued the impugned Notification dated 04.05.2019
declaring the subject election as void. It was also stated that the fresh election Notification for conduct of elections to the said constituency will be
issued separately.
14. There is no dispute with regard to registration of a case in Cr.No.98 of 2019 based on the complaint of the 7th respondent against the Appellant
and deposit of amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with the police. The report, dated 01.05.2019 of the 3rd respondent shows that the 7th respondent was
forcibly taken away, threatened to withdraw nomination, his signature was forcibly taken and also a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as a bribe was paid to
him. It also further shows that the complaint of the 7th respondent appears to be an afterthought and before the District Collector, the 7th
respondent stated that he was accompanied to the Returning Officer’s office by the three others and withdrawal form was submitted in closed
doors. Whereas, he did not mention this either in the complaint or during the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Returning Officer,
in his deposition before the Observer, District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, stated that someone standing at the door, tried to close it but,
on his warning, it was not resorted to since the Returning Officer also did not mention this aspect either during the enquiry conducted by the Revenue
Divisional Officer or when questioned by the DRO.
15. Referring to the same, in the report of the 3rd respondent, it was concluded that as alleged in the complaint, the 7th respondent was not forcibly
taken out of his village, nor was he under any kind of threat and the withdrawal form was signed and submitted wilfully. With regard to the bribery,
after considering the voice recordings of the calls produced by the 7th respondent, it was also concluded by the 3rd respondent that it raises a doubt as
to why only the relatives calls, except the accused/the appellant, were recorded.
Though the money was deposited with the police along with the complaint, the 7th respondent did not establish the source of money in order to
establish whether there was a link between the deposited amount and the withdrawal of nomination.
16. In the complaint dated 29.04.2019, the 7th respondent clearly mentioned about the threat given to him and bribe of Rs.20,00,000/- offered to him
and payment of Rs.10,00,000/-. In the complaint dated 30.04.2019, the Appellant did not mention about the issuance of Form-X in original to him. He
has mentioned about the protest and explained other aspects.
17. It is relevant to note that vide letter dated 14.05.2019, the 1st respondent requested the 3rd respondent to enquire the matter in detail and take
necessary action and report compliance to the State Election Commission immediately. In th said letter, dted 14.05.2019, the 1st referred the
preparation of Form-X by the Returning Officer, its submission to the MPDO with a request to obtain permission from the 3rd respondent. When the
same was not issued to the Appellant, without obtaining clearance from the District Election Authority. Without obtaining clearance from the 1st and
the 3rd respondents, copy of the same was issued to the Appellant and therefore, the 3rd respondent appointed the District Panchayat Officer,
Nagarkurnool as an Enquiry Officer to conduct detailed enquiry. Accordingly, he conducted enquiry and submitted report dated 01.06.2019.
18. In the said report, dated 01.06.2019, it is mentioned that as per the statement of MPDO, a file containing the prepared Form-X in original was
handed over to him by the Returning Officer, Gaggalapally MPTC Cluster on 28.04.2021 with oral request to obtain permission from the District
Collector, for publishing the same in the notice board as well as handing over to the candidate. However, since he was busy in the scrutiny of Form-
IX, he placed the file in the Almarah under lock and key. He had not given out the Form-X or copy of it to any one nor did any of his staff have
access to the file, as it was under lock and key. The Returning Officer further stated that he had prepared Form-X and handed over the same to the
MPDO for obtaining clearance from the District Collector for declaring the result and publishing the same. He neither gave a copy nor published the
same in the notice board. Though the Appellant attended the enquiry and stated that since matter is pending before this Court, his Advocate had
suggested not to give copies of documents available with him to anyone.
19. It is also mentioned in the report of the DPO, dated 01.06.2019 that he had examined the file available in the MPDO’s office but
acknowledgment of the receipt of Form-X is not available in the file. Copy said to be available with the Appellant in the Writ Petition could only a
xerox copy or printout of a photo or a scanned copy, but not an original. However, it is difficult to conclude anything without examining the original
available with the Appellant. Thus, the District Panchayat Officer concluded that the Returning Officer should not have prepared the Form -X without
obtaining orders from the District Collector and the District Election Authority though he has not published /issued a copy, he might have permitted the
Appellant to take up photo using his mobile. Similarly, the MPDO also might have permitted the Appellant or his representatives to take up photo of
prepared Form -X. Since the specific source of leakage cannot be established, responsibility shall be fixed on both the MPDO and Returning Officer.
Accepting the said report of the District Panchayat Officer, both the MPDO and the Returning Officer were made responsible for leakage and
disciplinary action was initiated against them by issuing article of charges to both of them.
20. It is also relevant to note that in the counter filed by the 1st respondent in W.P.No.10195 of 2020, there is a specific denial with regard to serving
of Form -X on the Appellant declaring him as elected candidate. The Returning Officer has not reported the matter to the District Collector and
Election Authority. Form â€"X as per law was not issued to the Appellant. The report of the District Collector, dated 01.05.2019 also reflects the said
fact. The Appellant has not filed any rejoinder to the said counter contending the said facts.
21. The above stated discussion would reveal that the 4th respondent did not report the matter to the District Election Authority and did not obtain
clearance from the 3rd respondent as per the directives dated 08.01.2019 and 28.04.2019 issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 197 of the Act. At the cost of repetition, it is also relevant to note that in the report, dated 01.05.2019, the 3rd respondent had
requested the 1st respondent to issue necessary directions regarding declaring result of Gaggalapally MPTC under unanimous category. Thus, the 3rd
respondent has not given any clearance to the 4th respondent to declare the result of the State Election as unanimous and the 3rd respondent did not
obtain further instructions from the 1st respondent in terms of directives dated 08.01.2019 and 28.04.2019. Therefore, Form -X was not served on the
Appellant and therefore the election process was not concluded. Considering the said aspects, the learned Single Judge, rightly held that once Form -X
declaration is not issued, it has to be construed that the election result is not declared. As such it is within the plenary power and jurisdiction of the 1st
respondent to declare election as void. Therefore, there is no error in the said finding.
22. It is relevant to mention that in Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer Hilsa-cum-Returning Officer AIR 1985SC1746, the
Hon’ble Apex Court, considering the Election Petition under the Representation of People Act, 1951, the facts of the said case, Rule 64 of the
conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and Forms there under, held that the manner is clearly expressed in Rule 64 of the Rules. There must be a
declaration in Form-21-C or Form 21-D. The announcement by the Returning Officer that the petitioner therein had been elected has no legal status
because the declaration in Form 21-C had not yet been drawn up. Even the grant of the certificate of election in Form 21-C had not yet been drawn
up. Even the grant of the certificate of election in Form 22 to the petitioner cannot avail him because Rule 66 contemplates the grant of such
certificate only after the candidate has been declared elected under Section 66 of the Act, which refers back to Rule 64 and therefore to Form 21-C.
There having been no declaration in Form 21-C at the relevant time, the grant of the certificate of election in Form 22 to the petitioner was
meaningless. The Apex Court further held that the process of election came to an end after the declaration in Form 21-C was made and the
consequential formalities were completed. The bar of Clause (b) of Article 329 of the Constitution came into operation thereafter and an election
petition alone was maintainable.
23. Thus, Even in the present case, as discussed supra, the 4th respondent-Returning Officer did not complete the consequential formalities of seeking
approval from the concerned authorities and issuing Form-X to the Appellant. Therefore, the election process was not completed.
24. It is relevant to note that referring to the said directives dated 28.04.2019, learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the said directives
were issued after 20.04.2019, the date on which the election Notification was issued and 22.04.2019, the date on which election notice by the
Returning Officer was issued and therefore, the same are not applicable. The said guidelines are prospective but not retrospective. Therefore,
according to him, the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent and learned Single Judge, did not consider the said aspects. However, it is relevant to note
that in the impugned Notification dated 04.05.2019, there is specific mention that with a view to prevent misuse of influence/coercion/abuse of
money/power by the vested interests, the State Election Commission has issued Notification No.103 TSE/2019, dated 08.01.2019 and order
No.1763/7SEC-PR/2019/dated 28.04.2019 requiring Returning Officers to obtain the clearance from the District Election Authority in all cases of
unanimous elections. The District Election Commission, in turn, is required to obtain further instructions from the State Election Commission, in all
cases where auctioning or use of undue influence is evidenced. There is no rebuttal to it and there is no explanation much less plausible explanation by
the Appellant herein with regard to the said non-rebuttal. There is no challenge to the proceedings dated 08.01.2019 and dated 28.04.2019. Therefore,
the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the directives issued vide Notification dated 08.01.2019 and order dated 28.04.2019 are not
applicable, is not acceptable.
25. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the 1st respondent is having power to declare the subject election as void by invoking its
powers under Article 243K of the Constitution of India and Rule 6 of the Rules. The said provisions and others are relevant and the same are
extracted hereunder:-
a) Article 243K(1) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:-
243K. Elections to the Panchayats:-
(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be
vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.
b) Rule 6 of the Rules reads as follows:-
Special Election Programme.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where the election process is interrupted or the election programme
has to be altered on account of the orders of any court of law or for other valid reasons to be recorded in writing, it shall be competent for the State
Election Commission either generally or in respect of specified Gram Panchayat or Mandal Praja Parishad or Zilla Praja Parishad, as the case may be,
to alter the election programme notified under sub-section (1) of Section 198 and re-notify the election programme as it deems fit in the circumstances
of the case without having regard to the guidelines mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 198 and the Returning Officer shall give effect to the same
:
Provided that where the election programme is re-notified under this rule commencing from the making of nominations, the nominations already made
shall be disregarded and the deposits, if any, made under Rule 9 shall be refunded.
c) Rule 15 of the Rules reads as follows:-
Declaration of Result of Uncontested Election.- (1) If the number of contesting candidates is more than one, poll shall be taken.
(2) If there is only one validly nominated candidate, the Returning Officer shall forthwith declare such candidate as duly elected in Form-X and send
the same to the State Election Commission, Election Authority and the District Election Authority.
d) Section 211(1) of the Act deals with corrupt practices which reads as follows:-
The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:-
(1) Bribery, that is to say,-
(A) Any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any
gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing:-
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election; or
(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as reward to,-
(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or
(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting.
(B) The receipt of or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive or a reward,-
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from being a candidate; or
(b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to
vote or refrain from voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature.
Therefore, the State Election Commission is having power to declare the subject election as void in exercise of its powers under Article 243K(1) of
the Constitution of India, and also Rule 6 of the Rules.
26. As discussed above, a case in Cr.No.98 of 2019 was also registered against the Appellant and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as alleged was also
deposited by the 7th respondent with the police. There is specific allegation of offering of Rs.20,00,000/- towards bribe by the Appellant to the 7th
respondent for withdrawal of the nomination. There is also allegation of intimidation etc., by the Appellant to the 7th respondent for withdrawal of his
nomination and the same is also reflected in the complaint, dated 29.04.2019 lodged by the 7th respondent.
27. It is relevant to note that in the complaint dated 30.04.2019, the Appellant did not mention about the issuance of the Form-X by the 4th respondent
to him declaring him as unanimous candidate. He has only mentioned that he was under the impression that he was declared as elected on the
withdrawal of nomination by the 7th respondent. In the complaint, dated 30.04.2019, there is no denial of offering of bribe to the 7th respondent and
payment of Rs.10,00,000/-
28. The report of the 3rd respondent, dated 01.05.2019 refers to the reports of the 5th and 6th respondents and by considering the said reports, the 3rd
respondent submitted his report to the 1st respondent. There is mention about the registration of crime and deposit of the alleged amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- with the police. The 1st respondent has considered the said facts of corruption and intimidation and issued Notification dated
04.05.2019 mentioning that though the gist of the enquiry reveals no use of any physical force, it alludes amongst others the involvement of huge sum
of Rs.10,00,000/- offered as bribe and the said amount was also handed over to the police. A criminal case for the offences under Sections 171-B and
171-E of the IPC, was registered and it besides subverts the democratic election process by denying freedom of choice to votes by excluding potential
candidates from the contest on financial grounds. This, if allowed, could lead to imposition of the tyranny of a few over majority of the people.
Therefore, on consideration of the said facts and in exercise of the powers conferred on the 1st respondent under Article 243-K of the Constitution of
India and Rule 6 of the Rules, declared the election process so far held in pursuance of the election under Notification dated 20.04.2019 as void in
respect of Gaggalapally MPTC.
29. It is relevant to note that discussing all the above aspects elaborately and referring to the principle laid down by the Division Bench of the then
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gangaram Vs. State Election Commission (1996) 4 ALT 454 (DB) Bukka Lakshma Naik Vs. State Election
Commission (2008) 2 ALT 768, and the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (1978) 1 SCC
405, and powers conferred on the 1st respondent, the learned Single Judge held that the Notifications referred to the above are purportedly to have
been issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of superintendence powers. The conditions imposed in the notifications to refer to the District Election
Authority in all cases of unanimous elections and further to the State Election Commission in all cases where auctioning or use of undue influence is
evidenced is to maintain the purity of elections and nurture the values of democracy and its framework. Even otherwise, the said notifications are not
in challenge in this proceeding. Learned Single Judge, held that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, inputs called for and received
concluded and declared the election process void, which does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of
extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the aid findings, learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ
Petition.
30. In view of the above said discussion, according to this Court, since there is no error in the impugned order, it does not require interference by this
Court under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. Even the Appellant fails to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
31. In the result, the I.A.No.1 of 2021 is allowed. The Writ Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 17.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.10195 of
2019 by the learned Single Judge.
32. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
