[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Jadala Ravindra vs The Telangana State Election … on 22 April, 2025
Author: P. Sree Sudha
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.296 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Smt Justice P. Sree Sudha)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the
order passed in Election O.P. No. 2 of 2020 on the file of the
Election Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
(for short ‘the trial Court’), filed under Section 71 to 80 of
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Act’) r/w the A.P. Municipal Corporations
(Conduct of Election of Members) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter
referred as ‘Rules’) for declaring the respondent No.4 as not
eligible to contest as ward member/corporator at Ward No. 77,
Jambagh Division, as per Section 21-B of GHMC Act, 1955;
also to declare the election of respondent No.4 as null and void
in view of Section 79(2)(d) of the GHMC Act, 1955 with a
consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to recount the
total votes polled at ward No.77 in the presence of appellant and
respondent No.4.
2
2. The Appellant herein is the petitioner in the aforesaid
Election O.P. No.2 of 2020 filed under Section 71 to 80 of Act,
1955.
Case of the Appellant:
3. The case of the appellant in brief is that, he had contested in
the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Elections, 2020 held on
01.12.2020 for Ward No. 77, for the post of ward
member/corporator from All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul
Muslimeen, (A.I.M.I.M.) political party along with the
respondents Nos.4 to 16.
4. The appellant contended that, in the underlying election
affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.
2, he had declared that he got two dependents other than spouse,
which was challenged by him in the aforesaid Election O.P.
5. It is further case of the appellant that, the respondent No.4
has suppressed the material facts before the respondent No.2
about the fact that he having three children i.e. one male child
namely Mr. Aakash Jaiswal born on 13.02.1987, and two female
3
children viz., Ms. Aakriti Jaiswal born on 09.01.1990, and Ms.
Srijitha Jaiswal born on 14.04.1996 which is in violation of
Section 21-B of the Act, therefore he shall not be liable for
continuing to be a member of the Ward and to be disqualified.
6. The appellant contended that, the respondent No.4
intentionally and wantonly suppressed the fact about of he
having the three children in order to get elected, thereby, the
election of the respondent No 4 is liable to be declared as void
under Section 79 (2) (d) of the Act.
7. Appellant also contends that, he seriously apprehends that
the counting of the votes was done in most partial manner and
when same was questioned before the respondent No.2,
respondent authorities failed to accede to the request for
recounting and proceeded to declare the respondent No. 4 as
returned candidate.
Case of the Respondent No.2:
8. It is the case of the respondent authorities, that the
respondent No.2 has acted in a fair and transparent manner as the
entire counting process was done under CCTV surveillance and
4
conducted the election without deviating from any Rules and
guidelines as given by the respondent No.1.
9. It is contented on behalf of the respondent No.2 that, the
appellant has never raised any objection regarding dis-
qualification of any of the contesting candidate during the
election process till the announcement of results. It is also
contended that the copies of the nomination papers filed by each
candidate were displayed on the notice board in the office of the
respondent No.2 and the same were also uploaded in the TSEC
website. And no objection was made either by the appellant or
his election agent at the time of nominations or requested the
respondent No.2 to examine any nomination paper of respondent
No.4.
Case of the Respondent No.4:
10. The case of respondent No.4 is that, the appellant has
approached the Court with unclean hands, as he has two election
ID cards, and a PAN card which shows different date of birth
that possessing two election ID cards is against the law and such
suppression of fact and giving wrong declarations to the
5
government and authorities makes the appellant liable for
punishment and also disqualification.
11. Respondent No.4 further contended that, the appellant has
no cause of action to maintain the Election O.P. since, the
appellant has neither obtained permission from A.I.M.I.M. Party
to prove that the said Party has nominated him, nor the
A.I.M.I.M. Party is made party to the underlying O.P. Thus, the
underlying petition is bad for non-joinder of the parties.
Consideration by Trial Court:
12. Basing on the respective contentions the trial Court, had
framed the following issues for consideration: –
i. Whether the respondent No.4 has three children, and
therefore liable to be disqualified under Section 21-B of
the GHMC Act?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order declaring the
election of the respondent No.4 for Ward No.77 of
Jambagh Division, GHMC limits, as null and void?
iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of declaring
the election as a whole as void?
6
13. Before the trial Court, the appellant got himself examined
as PW-1 and got marked his Exs.P-1 to P-14, whereas the Ex.P-
15 is marked in confrontation with the RW-1 i.e. respondent
No.4. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws-1 to 6 examined and
no documents marked.
The trial Court basing on the oral and documentary evidence
adduced on both sides and having regard to the points for
consideration had observed as under:
I. The documents relevant for ascertaining the facts of the case
would be the Birth Certificate of Ms. Aakriti Jaiswal who is
alleged to be the third child of respondent No.4 marked as
Ex.P-8; ii) the Original Voter Identity Card of Ms. Aakriti
Jaiswal marked as Ex.P-12, iii) Original Memorandum of
Marks issued by SSC Board of Ms. Aakriti Jaiswal marked as
Ex.P-14 and iv) Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated 04.08.2010
marked as Ex.P-15.
II. With regard to Ex.P-8 the trial Court noted its findings as under:
a) Para 42. …Exhibit P8 shows the respondent No.4 and RW6 as
the parents. In order to dispute the genuineness of Exhibit P8,
the counsel for Respondent No.4 produced another sample birth
certificate obtained from mee-seva (Exhibit P8 also issued by
7mee-seva) to demonstrate that the symbols present on a original
certificate issued by mee-seva are differently placed as
compared to the symbols, which are found on Exhibit P8.
b) ….The petitioner herein as PW1 denied knowledge about where
he has obtained Exhibits P7 to P9, which contains Exhibit P8
purporting to be birth certificate of Aakriti Jaiswal alleged to be
daughter of Respondent No.4. In spite of confronting Exhibits
P7 to P9, the petitioner declined to state from which mee-seva
center Exhibits P7 to P9 are obtained.
c) The petitioner categorically declined to examine any of the
G.H.M.C. officials to prove the contents of Exhibit P8 as
genuine.
d) Para 48….both the parties have made use of internet connection
in open Court to demonstrate the truthfulness of Exhibit P8 by
opening different sites of G.H.M.C. One site opened by the
petitioner showed the information furnished with respect to
birth of Aakriti Jaiswal and the parents being Rakesh Jaiswal
(Respondent No.4) and Veena Jaiswal. While so, the Respondent
No.4 demonstrated that Exhibit P8 does not exist on the website
for the registration number available on Exhibit P8 …again the
burden is cast on the petitioner to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the contents of Exhibit P8.
e) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to judgment reported in
2002 (6) ALD 227 in the case between P.Aruna Devi Vs.
Election Authority-cum-Commissioner, Adoni Municipality
and Others, for the legal ratio that “In the trial of an election
petition, the burden of proving corrupt practices by the
candidate or his agents lies heavily upon the petitioner and the
same has to be proved not by mere preponderance of
probability, but by cogent and reliable evidence beyond any
reasonable doubt failing which the petition must fail.”
f) … Thus, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner failed to prove the contents of Exhibit P8 beyond
reasonable doubt.
8
III. With regard to Ex.P-12 the trial Court noted its findings as
under:
a) Para 43. …Exhibit P12 shows the name of Rakesh Jaiswal
(Respondent No.4) as father and the address on Exhibit P12
is the address of Respondent No.4…..In this regard, a
question arises as to how and in what manner, the petitioner
would get possession of Voter Identity Card belonging to any
person including Aakriti Jaiswal. …. In normal
circumstances, it is highly improbable for any third person to
get possession of original Voter Identity Card pertaining to
any third party.
b) Therefore, a genuine doubt arises as to how and in what
manner the petitioner was able to get possession of Exhibit
P12. When questioned about the same, when questioned
about the contents of Exhibit P12, when suggested that
Exhibit P12 is a fabricated document, the petitioner as PW1
has denied the suggestion. but categorically declined to
examine the Election Authorities to prove the genuineness of
Exhibit P12.
c) In fact, the petitioner deposed that he has no knowledge
whether Exhibit P12 would be found to be in the Electoral
Rolls of Respondent No.2. Thus, the petitioner failed to
establish the genuineness of contents of Exhibit P12 with any
amount of credibility.
d) Para 49…There is no convincing explanation from the
petitioner as to how Exhibit P12 came into his possession. Be
that as it may, the petitioner cannot prove his case by
deposing to the effect that he does not have knowledge as to
whether Exhibit P12 is present in the Electoral Rolls of
Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
e) The petitioner cannot produce a document before an Election
Tribunal at the first instance and then depose he does not
know about the existence of said document in the concerned
public office subsequently. Thus, this Tribunal is of the
9considered opinion that Exhibit P12 is also not proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
IV. With regard to Ex.P-14 the trial Court noted its findings as
under:
a) Para 44. …The Exhibit P14 is an original document issued
on 26.03.2021 i.e., much after the declaration of result in
G.H.M.C. elections on 04.12.2020. Exhibit P14 does not
contain the name of Respondent No.4.
b) Further, the petitioner declined to divulge the identity of
the person who issued Exhibit P14… The petitioner not
only refused to examine any witness to prove the contents
of Exhibit P14, but also declined to examine any staff of
Rosary Convent School to prove that the person by name
Aakriti Jaiswal is the daughter of Respondent No.4.
V. With regard to Ex.P-15 the trial Court noted its findings as
under:
a) Para 45. …The Respondent No.4 as RW1 admitted having
purchased his residential property through said document
but deposed that the Page No.18 is fabricated….When
confronted with Exhibit P15 suddenly the Respondent
No.4 admitted the document, the photographs and having
purchased the residential property in the name of his wife
and himself.
b) When confronted with Page No.18 of Exhibit P15 i.e.,
copy of Ration Card allegedly submitted by the
Respondent No.4 himself to the Registration Authorities,
the Respondent No.4 denied the same. In this regard,
again the petitioner declined to examine any witness to
prove the contents of Exhibit P15.
c) Para 54. …the counsel for Respondent No.4 produced the
original of registered sale deed Exhibit P15 in open Court,
coupled with the certified copy obtained subsequent to the
certified copy marked under Exhibit P15. …the Counsel
10for Respondent No.4 challenged the genuineness of
contents of Exhibit P15, more particularly, Page No.18
alleging that the same is a fabricated document…
d) When perused, the original registered sale deed dated
04.08.2010 bearing document No.2256 of 2010 at Page
No.18 contains the copies of Voter Election Identity Cards
of Respondent No.4 and his wife Veena Jaiswal, but not
the copy of Ration Card of Respondent No.4 as produced
under Exhibit P15.
e) Para 57….The counsel for petitioner did not give consent
for marking of the original registered sale deed dated
04.08.2010 bearing document No.2256 of 2010 for being
considered to ascertain the truth.
f) Para 58. A strange situation is, there is a certified copy of
Exhibit P15 issued by the Sub-Registrar Office on
15.12.2021 showing Page No.18 with a copy of the
Respondent No.4…There is yet another certified copy
issued by the Sub-Registrar Office, obtained by the
counsel for Respondent No.4 on 12.11.2021, which shows
that the Page No.18 contains the copies of Voter Identity
Cards of Respondent No.4 and his wife. Ideally, the
official who issued Exhibit P15 and the certified copy to
the Respondent No.4 should have been examined by
summoning documents from the Sub-Registrar’s Office, to
prove whether the contents of Exhibit P15 are genuine…
g) Without such evidence, this Tribunal cannot decide
whether Exhibit P15 is a genuine document or the
document produced by the Respondent No.4 in the form of
original registered sale deed and the corresponding
certified copy are genuine.
VI. The trial Court by recording its finding as above had held
that, the petitioner failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
contents of Ex.P-8, P12, P14 and P15. As such, failed to prove
that the Respondent No.4 has three children, and therefore,
11
attracts disqualification under Section 21-B and Sections 71 to 80
of the G.H.M.C. Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to
grant of relief of declaring the Respondent No.4 as ineligible to
contest the G.H.M.C. elections and accordingly dismissed the
O.P.
14. Heard, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned
Counsel for respondents, and perused the record.
Considerations by this Court:
15. Though, the appellant filed the underlying O.P and the
present appeal on various grounds, however at the time of
hearing of the present appeal, has confined his challenge only to
the issue of the respondent No.4 having three children, thereby
attracting disqualification rendering his election as being in
violation to the Section 21-B of the Act.
16. As pleaded, the fulcrum of the case of the appellant before
the trial court and before this court is that the respondent No.4
has more than two children thereby attracting disqualification to
contest as ward member/corporator, thereby has to be
12
disqualified under the Act, with a consequential relief to declare
the appellant as the elected ward member or returned candidate.
17. As noted by the trial Court the sheet anchor for the case of
the appellant are four documents marked as Ex.P-8, P12, P14
and P15.
18. It is to be noted that, when a prima facie objection is raised
as to the effect that Ex.P-8 i.e. original birth certificate of
Ms.Aakriti Jaiswal is a fabricated document and the mee-seva
certificate issued by G.H.M.C. have a different pattern of
placement of symbols as compared to Exs.P-7 to 9 produced by
the appellant, the trial Court rightly observed that the onus shifts
to appellant to prove the contents of Ex.P-8.
19. It is to be noted that, the Ex.P-8 which is a public document
and where its contents are disputed as false and fabricated the
first step in order to prove the document, is by stating source of
from where the appellant has obtained the said certificate,
secondly, by examining the concerned authority who could
vouchsafe as to the genuineness of the cetificate. In the facts of
the present case, as noted by the trial Court, the appellant having
13
categorially declined to examine any of the GHMC officials to
prove the contents of the Ex.P-8 as genuine, no reliance can be
placed, since, the burden lies on the appellant/petitioner to prove
it beyond any reasonable doubt, which the appellant/petitioner
herein has failed.
20. Similarly, with regard to Ex.P-12, it is the Voter ID card
belonging to Ms.Aakriti Jaiswal who is the alleged third child of
the respondent No.4. The trial Court had categorically noted as
to how petitioner could gain entry into the house of the
respondent No.4 to secure possession of Ex.P-12. In absence of
the appellant providing the satisfactory explanation as to
possession of the Ex.P-12 by him and also declining to examine
any of the election authority to prove the genuineness of Ex.P-
12, it cannot be said that genuineness and contents of the
document is established beyond reasonable doubt for it to be
accepted.
21. Insofar as Ex.P-14 is concerned which is memorandum of
marks of Ms.Aakriti Jaiswal, the same does not show the name
of the respondent No.4 who is alleged to be the father of the
14
student. Further the refusal of the appellant to examine any
witness to prove the contents of Ex.P-14 and also the staff of the
school where the student to whom the said memo belongs to in
order to prove that the said student is the daughter of respondent
No.4, no credence can be placed on the said document.
22. Though on behalf of the appellant, it is contended that Ex.P-
15 which is confronted to respondent No.4 in his cross
examination particularly ‘page 18’ which is copy of ration card
filed as ID proof for registration, clinchingly shows he having
three children, the respondent No.4 by producing the original of
the said document before the trial Court contended that, the Page
18 contains the copies of Voter Election Identity card of
respondent No.4 and his wife, but not the copy of the ration card
as claimed by the appellant, thus, Ex.P-15 is fabricated
document, and called upon the appellant/petitioner to come
forward to marking of the original of Ex.P-15 which is refused
by the appellant.
23. The Court below by taking note of the said situation with
regard to Ex.P-15, had noted that since the respondent No.4 by
15
producing the original document had claimed the Ex.P-15
particularly as fabricated it is for the appellant/petitioner to take
appropriate steps to examine the staff of sub-registrar office to
prove the contents of Ex.P-15 in regard to page 18, held that the
trial Court cannot decide whether the Ex.P-15 as produced by
appellant is genuine/original document by respondent No.4 and
thus, held that Ex.P-15 of page 18 to be a questionable
document, therefore it is not relevant for considering the case of
the appellant.
24. Though, the counsel vehemently contended that the trial
Court ought to have considered the aforesaid documents when
examined, with reference to the cross-examination of
appellant/petitioner, the same would demonstrate that, the
appellant except marking the documents as Ex.P-8, P12, P14 and
P15, did not prove to examine any concerned authorities in order
to prove the genuineness and correctness of the documents. It is
trite law that mere production and marking of documents as
exhibits cannot be a due proof of its contents. (See: Narbada
16
Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and others 1 and
Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar and others 2)
25. Further, the claim of the appellant/petitioner that Ex.P-8,
P12, P14 and P15 are public documents, and are to be accepted,
it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Bombay High
Court in Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust of India 3 (speaking
through his lordship S.P. Bharucha as his Lordship then was)
wherein referring to its earlier decision in C.H. Shah v. S.S.
Malpathak4 it was held as under:
“14. …The Court was concerned with deciding whether
the original of a public document has to be proved in the
same manner as any other document. A consideration of
the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act clearly showed
the Court that the only difference which the Act made
between public and private documents was in regard to
the form of secondary evidence which is admissible, viz., a
certified copy, and in regard to the presumption of the
genuineness of the certified copy; in all other respects no
distinction was drawn by the Act between public and
private documents.”
26. Similarly, it is also to be noted that the authenticity of the
entries recorded in the school records would depend on whose
1
2003 AIR SC 5861
2
2023 13 SCC 563
3
1982 SCC OnLine Bom 148
4
1972 Mh. LJ 816
17
information such entries stood recorded and on its source.
However, in the present case the appellant did not choose to
examine any person from Rosary Convent School, where the
Aakrithi was claimed to have studied and appeared for Board
exam, to prove the genuineness or otherwise of Ex.P-14 i.e.
Memorandum of Marks of Aakriti Jaiswal.
27. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh and
others v. Rajni Kant and Another has held that:
20. So far as the entries made in the official record by an
official or person authorised in performance of official duties
are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 35 of
the Evidence Act but the court has a right to examine their
probative value. The authenticity of the entries would depend
on whose information such entries stood recorded and what
was his source of information. The entries in school
register/school leaving certificate require to be proved in
accordance with law and the standard of proof required in
such cases remained the same as in any other civil or
criminal cases.
28. The appellant except getting the aforesaid document
marked, despite being called upon by the trail Court, did not
choose to examine any of the concerned issuing authorities in
order to prove the genuineness of the said document, in the
considered opinion of this Court cannot claim that he having
18
proved that the respondent No.4 having more than two children,
thus attracting disqualification as per the Act and the Court
below having erred in dismissing the O.P. Thus, the contention
of the appellant on this ground has to fail.
29. Insofar, as the prayer to declare appellant/petitioner as
returned candidate is concerned, mere declaration of respondent
No.4 as attracting disqualification would not entitle him to be
declared as the returned candidate as held by the Apex Court in
the case of Prakash Khandre v. Dr. Vijaya Kumar Khandre5
that:
14. However, in an election where elected candidate is
declared to be disqualified to contest election and there are
more than two candidates contesting election, there is no
specific provision under the Act under which the person who
has secured the next highest number of votes could be
declared as elected. The Act is silent on this point. Further, it
cannot be presumed that the votes secured by the disqualified
elected candidates would have been wasted or would have
been secured by the next candidate who has secured more
votes. If disqualified candidate was not permitted to contest
the election, then how the voters would have voted in favour
of the candidate who has secured more votes than other
remaining candidates would be a question in the realm of
speculation and unpredictability. In such a situation,
declaring the election of the returned candidate on the5
AIR 2002 SC 2345
19ground of his initial disqualification to contest the election by
itself would not entitle the election appellant or any other
candidate to be declared elected.
30. The trial Court by placing reliance on a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in G.Vanaja G Shivajyothi vs V
Bhanumati and others 6 held that the declaration of petitioner as
elected candidate is not possible even if in case it is proved that
respondent No.4 is ineligible.
31. It is pertinent to note that in the underlying O.P. the
appellant/petitioner had sought for declaring the respondent No.4
as not eligible to contest as ward member/corporator, with a
consequential direction to declare his election as ward
member/corporator and to declare the appellant/petitioner as
elected ward member/corporator at Ward No.77, Jambagh
Division, GHMC Limits. However, since the appellant/petitioner
had failed to establish the factum of respondent No.4 attracting
disqualification in terms of Section 21-B of the Act, this Court is
of the view that the appellant/petitioner is not entitled for being
granted any relief.
6
2012 (6) ALD 759
20
32. Having regard to the law as enunciated by the Apex Court
and other High Courts to the facts of the present case of the
appellant, it can safely be held that the appellant had failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the contents of Ex.P-8, P12, P14
and P15 for him to succeed in the O.P by demonstrating that
RW4 having three children thereby attracting disqualification
under Section 21-B and Section 71 to 80 of the Act.
33. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the order of the trial Court in dismissing
the underlying O.P. does not suffer from any infirmity or error
for being interfered by this Court in the present appeal.
34. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of
merit and thus, dismissed.
35. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
_________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J
Date:22-04-2025
GSN
[ad_2]
Source link