Telangana High Court Refuses To Suspend Order Declaring BRS MLA Vanama Venkateswara's 2018 Election As Void
The Telangana High Court has dismissed former MLA Vanama Venkateswara Rao’s application seeking suspension of its recent decision declaring his 2018 election from Kothagudem constituency as void. Besides setting aside his election for non-disclosure of complete details about his assets, the court had also imposed a penalty of 5 Lakh on Rao. In the application seeking suspension of the...
The Telangana High Court has dismissed former MLA Vanama Venkateswara Rao’s application seeking suspension of its recent decision declaring his 2018 election from Kothagudem constituency as void.
Besides setting aside his election for non-disclosure of complete details about his assets, the court had also imposed a penalty of 5 Lakh on Rao. In the application seeking suspension of the operation of the order dated July 25, Rao argued that elections are due to be held in December this year and if the order passed is not suspended, serious prejudice would be caused to him.
However, Justice G. Radha Rani said that as per Section 116 B of the RP Act, for grant of suspension of the operation of the court order, sufficient cause has to be shown.
“No such sufficient cause was stated by the petitioner-respondent No.1 except stating that he served as an elected representative for four and half years,” the bench said.
It further said: “Since illegality could not be permitted to be perpetuated anymore and as no imprisonment is inflicted by this Court in the said order, and the judgement copy is also made available same day, this Court is not inclined to grant suspension of order.”
Rao was earlier accused of suppressing assets and liabilities/dues in Form 26, which is a declaration to be endorsed by the candidate disclosing all the assets and liabilities/dues, criminal cases pending etc, as per section 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.
On July 25, the court said a duty was cast upon him to disclose as to how the claims were settled and how he has relinquished his right over the properties.
“In the absence of any evidence in proof of the same simply stating that since he had no claim over the property, he had not disclosed the same is not a justifiable explanation. As such, this Court considers it as a corrupt practice falling under ‘undue influence’ under Section 123(2) of the R.P. Act," the court ruled.
Title: Jalagam Venkat Rao v. Vanama Venkateswara Rao