Telangana High Court Declares BRS MLA Vanama Venkateswara's 2018 Assembly Election Void, Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Penalty

The Telangana High Court has declared BRS MLA Vanama Venkateswara Rao's 2018 election from Kothagudem as void and fined him Rs 5,00,000 for submitting false affidavit during the filing of nomination papers before the Returning Officer. The court declared Jalagam Venkat Rao of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (now Bharat Rashtra Samith) as the returned candidate from the constituency with effect from December 12, 2018.

Vanama Venkateswara Rao had contested the election as a candidate of the Congress party. He later resigned from the Congress and joined the BRS. The court decision will have no effect on the strength of BRS in the state legislature as both the leaders now belong to the same party.

Justice G. Radha Rani passed the ruling on BRS candidate Jalagam Venkat Rao's election petition that accused Vanama Venkateswara Rao 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.

"As the petitioner is the next highest candidate, who secured 76979 votes, the petitioner is entitled to be declared as elected returned candidate from 12.12.2018 of Kothagudem Assembly Constituency," the court said, as it ruled in favour of the petitioner.

According to Jalagam Venkat Rao, Vanama Venkateswara Rao had failed to mention about a pending criminal case and ownership of agricultural properties and house property. The plea also alleged suppression of other information. During the course of arguments, the petitioner had withdrawn the pleading related to criminal cases. Vanama Venkateswara Rao in response had denied the allegations 

Justice Rani held that Vanama Venkateswara Rao "had suppressed information relating to his immovable assets while filing Form-26 affidavit dated 14.11.2018 which would amount to suppression of material facts and that the same would amount to corrupt practice”

"In the present case also it was respondent No.1 who has the knowledge of his assets and a duty is 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 observed.

The court also noted that Vanama Venkateswara Rao, despite being a party to the proceedings, did not choose to enter the witness box and to face the cross-examination. "Thus an adverse inference could be drawn against him as per Section 114 of the Evidence Act," it ruled.

The bench in the ruling also said that Section 87 of the R.P. Act reveals that "C.P.C. is not required to be complied strictly but as nearly as may be."

"Procedure is the hand maid of justice and mere irregularity in the observance of the procedural law can be ignored in larger interest of justice," said the court, while rejecting technical objections raised by the respondent.

On whether there were sufficient pleadings in the Election Petition, the court said schedules or annexures are part of the election petition.

"The comparative table filed by the petitioner showing the details of the properties disclosed by R1 in earlier election affidavits filed in the years 2004, 2009 and 2014, and not disclosed in 2018 shall be considered as pleadings and part and parcel of the election petition, as they were also signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the C.P.C. for verification of pleadings," the bench ruled.

However, the court also said, "... annexures can be considered as pleadings and the discrepancies in respect of immovable assets which were pointed out by the petitioner in Annexure-XII can be looked into. But as there were no pleadings either in the election petition or in the Annexure-XII filed along with the petition with regard to suppressing information by R1 relating to his liabilities and dues in Form-26 affidavit dated 14.11.2018, the same cannot be looked into."

Title: Jalagam Venkat Rao vs. Mr. Vanama Venkateswara Rao & Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment