Mumtaz Fatima v. The State Of Telangana And 4 Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY wRtT PET|T|ON NO. 23206 0F 2020 Between:

lumtaz Fatima, D/o. Mohd Abdul Hakeem, Aged about 32 years, Rto.B-2-2g3l\2tLtj3B, MLA Colony Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyd-erabad. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana. represented by its Principal Secretary l\ilunicipal Administration and Urban Development Dept., Secretariat Buildinqs, Hvderabab. The T_elan_gana State_ Election Commission, Represented by it; Secretary, 1sr floor, DTCP building, Opposite PTl, AC Guards, Hvderabad. The Commjssioner and Election Authority, Greater Hyderabad lr.rlunicipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

Inq Returning Officer, Ward No.138, Mouta-ati, t\,4atkajgiri-28, cHtVC, Hyderabad.

Gunnala Sunitha Yadav, H.No.30-268111 and 12, Santoshima Nagar, tr.4oula Ali 1 38 Division, Malkajgiri.

4.

5.

...RESPONDENTS 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the in action of the respondent No.4 i.e., The Returning Officer148, Moulali Division, GHtVC, in considering the petitioner's request for recounting for the Drvision l\/oulali-138, GHIVC, including counting of rejected votes of 609 is illegal and arbitrary, in violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia besides in violation of principles of natural justice, in contra to the circular issued by the respondent No.2 vide 1r.No.1192/TSEC-ULBs-GHlVCl2020, dated 03.12.2020 and also in violation of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 22176 ol 2020 and consequently direct the respondents more particularly respondent Nos.2 and 4 to recount the votes for the Division IVlaulali-138, GHMC, including counting of 609 rejected votes.

lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct

the respondents more particularly respondent nos.2 and 4 to recount the votes for the Division Moulali-138, GHMC, including counting of 609 rejected votes pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. SUDHEER RAO, S.C. FOR ELECTION COMMISSION Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: SRI PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.5: - The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY W.P.No.232O6 OF 2O2O ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Gorrernment Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban De','elopment for respondent No.l , Sri P.Sudheer Rao, the lcerrned Standing Counsel for Tclangana Stat.e Dlcctron Commissior-r lor respondent \"o.2. tlre leamccl Stancling Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed ol at thc' st:rge of admission itself.

2.

The present Wnt Petition is filed seeking the follou,ing rclrcl':

"... to rssue anlJ wi| order or direction more particularlA one in the nature of unt of mandamus de-claring the incLction of the respondent No.4 i.e., The Retuning OfJic:er- 148, Moulali Diuision, GI-IMC, in considenng the petittoner's request for recounti.ng for the Diuis[on MouLcLli- 138, CHMC, including counting of rejected uotes o_f 609 is i egal ancl arbitrary, in uiolation of Article 14 ancl 2l of Constitution of lndia besides in uiolation oJ' pritciples aJ' natltrel .lrrsllce. in cantro to lhe circular is.srrr:rl hry lh€, re.s1;( )/1.1.'n I ,No.2 rirlc' Lr .\b. / 192/1'51;C t:LBs ()tlil( i )t))0. dutt'd 0.) 1) )(.)2(.) ur./ (/1.!-.) i/r t,ir,,irtIirrtr ()/ lll(' 0r(lc'r.s 1)(1s.tr'a1 l){l l/tt.s l/r.rrt i.'ie ( ottrl itt l1 .l).-\'rr.l,r/7(t Ltl' )(.)2O ortc/ r'r-;rr.sr clLtc'ttilLt (ltr(c; llrc' re.

sllori(/€,ll-s rnore y;ctrliculcttlLl respottdett!,1'os.-? rlirl 4lr-r re.i)ur jt Ilr(, L'd..s .lu tli,,' /)ili.sron .\/r.rrlrrli l.l,S. ( ill.1/('. irtcfutlincl cottnlirtyl ol' 609 re.lccle(l uoles and lo prl-s.:- .sttch other order or orders as this Hon'ble Courl ntcty deents Jil .just and proper in the circuntstances oJ'th.e case."

3.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the contesting candidate as Corporator for Moulali- 138 Division, GHMC, on TRS party candidature. As per the Election Schedule, the elections were held on Ol .12.2O2O and counting was conducted on O4.12.2O2O. But, respondent Nos.2 and 4 failed to take up the counting process in accordance with law. It is specifically averred that respondent No.2 failed to give proper instructions to the Returning Officers due to which several discrepancies took place durring the course of polling as r.r,ell as counting process. When the same were brought to the notice of respondent No.2, a Circular dated 03.12.2O2O, was issued giving certain ciarification with regard to counting of the votes.

It is averred that it is the mistake committed by the polling officers who had given 'ink pad'to the voters instead of giving 'Arrow Cross Mark' for marking on the ballot paper. It is further averred that 609 votes were ejected on the ground that the votes were cast by the voters through thumb impression and other distinguishing marks, which are impermissible. That, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation on 05,12.2O2O requesting for recounting of the votes, but the same \\'as not even acknowledged nor any orders are passed. Section 20 of the Election Rules empon:ers the respondent No.4 for recounting. Further, this Court has r-rphelcl the circrrlar issued br, respondent No.2 on 03.12.2020.

\ \R..r \\ l, \(, I ilr() L, : rtll herein u,hile counting the votes, but the respondent No.4 has not acted so, for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the petitioner, left with no other option, has filed the present writ petition.

4. This Court, on 07.12.2020, u'hile passing orders in W.P.No.22 776 ol 2020, has held as under "Tie I'ela.nclctia -qlale Eiection C'omnri-ssion lin-s the l)oLUc'r ia i-s-sue nece.s.srtril clirecti.on.sr,clailjcaijorr.- i/l llirihcr-iilcc o,i'ti:ldttt.iinq lhe., L-Jc,r.irol irr a -/itir ct.icl tnitctrlitil 7r)(rr]rr.,r- 'llic.iti|iiirrilli_r/] i1.,,;lrt/lictl ;71 111i.:. i1,rrl jt€iiit,r,i 1.-\ rr.,r.'ll rr rliil| iit,: t:,t,..1.t:r o.i ilit. '! L;ialt tt{il]at .,\l.riic lir.t.li0rr (.'orrtrrij.s-qrr;r't. IIotL:c:ter, t/t iiie percriJrnr. jirc.is trrLLl air('il/r.s/(lrla'c'.-.- .-)./' lrt.S aal.Sat. l/iC clctrrliCrrlrOn is-srir.rj i. irr,l. Lr.tro.I I92/'lStr-C l,l8s GI'ltlCi 2A2A, d.ned 03.12..2t))O jti]s crec:ted conlil.sian. irL I l'Le mincl.s of the L)aters, DcLrtws tttt,.j colra€-sraiil.s. i\ plctin reacltrtg of the ord.

er does not reueal a.s ta LL)ho.t u:as clctiJied bg tlLe Telangarta State Election Comnrl.s.slon uhen he meant "marltinq bg the uoter,'. But in uie** c.,f the spectli.c assel7ion ond subnrisslo n. mcLde by Sn G.Vidyo Sctqar. Senior Standing Counsel, appertrirLq ort behalJ oy 'l'ela.nqctna State Electton Commls.slon, th.at what LL,as meant bg the TelcLngctrta State ELecLion Commlsslon u,,as that th.e markinq on the baLlot paper bg the uoter other than Ltto', o"l 'Arrow Cro.ss r'lfark' is on.lu u,)itlt reJbrence to th.e ' l)istilqu)s l'Line1 ),[urli' ortLg cLtd no othl:r n.ctrk oJ' ctrLtl k:ild. Ti.,era.idrc.. liti.s (-'orr il h(s lo inler,t,re ortr.l n r:r_-r:.s.srr riii.1 rc:ctcl riou,ri l/rc. t:lrtri.lic:ril.ictn, cltLler,i 0i. i 2 202A. i.s.siie,rl l-lr7 iirc 'l t: i t t r ' r j t i t r t t ,Si..ric /-,-r(,a'iiilrl (-'rtrrt rri i.s.

sioIt 'rlarlirttg" Li.\^ li] 1ra.alti lirr 'lli-slirrr/lrislirrit_r .1hl.lt'orih,r. it,hiclt. r.s sTrcrtlic rirrr.l srr.;l ..,r to iltoi p(i11icL11cil Pollirlr.T LJoot'r .,'Str.iiiort i)1t 1,11t. 'l t'!erq.it\t Sirtlc'l1e'L'ilor ('orr rr r i-.^.:- io ri.

'l'ht 'l c:lttttclctrta .ilrtir: ,Ijiecltrt71 Clorlrtri-s.sr11 i.s r,rirr.rtlr:r7 l(, r'oirril l/i.' ljatiloi rtrUrr:r-.s, it,,iticit itoIe: bec:i rririi-/ir:d ir..illt ilrr., '1)i.:-tiriqrtt.slrlrr r1 -1.1rtrii'

?lre 1?c,irrrrrii]o Oj.licer s'ntill Lten_1r,1 cts fo l.rrheih.,r :i,.,_ 'DrsIrrrrTursiring \lctrli' tL;hiclL i-s .s'pecrrfic to th-e: pctrliculcLr Booth l

.1 \ \ii.

\\ t'j \!, l:l l/.,,alLrl, has been used in tieu of 'Arow Cross Mark' and count the ballot papers ctccordingtg as ualid ones ln case, anA oth'er mark is found other than tt'e 'Disttnguishing Mark' of thcLt parlicular Potling Station, the Returning Officer is free to take an independent decision as per tl'te procedure contemplated und,er 51 (2) of Telangana Municipal Corporations (Conduct of Election of Members) Rules, 2005.

Accordin()1.u, the Wit Petition is disposed of." 5.

A pcrr-Lsar1 of thc ri'rit alficlarlir cliscloses lhat thtr petitioner bv her ou,n admlssion has stated as under: "The purpose and purpotl of the circular issued by the respondent No.2 is that the polling officers failecl to perfonn ttLeir ciuties in guiding tLLe uotets ttr franchisirtg their uotes ctccordrng b *Le proceclure contemplated under latu, more pafticularly illiterate uoters. Without there being ang mistake on their pctrl and as per the guidance ond aduice of the polling officers, the uoters haue franchised their uotes uith different modes. That noticing the said issue the respondent No.2 herein had issued the aboue said I circular. As per the said circular the uotes which haue I been franchised bg the uoters Luith the distinguishing marks such as using thumb impression, using pen etc. It is pertinent to mention herein that it is the mistake of polling offtcers uho had giuen inkpad to the uoters instead of giuina arrou) cross mark for marking on the bcilot pctper."

6.

This Court, the order, clated 07 . 12.2O2O , passcd W.P.No.22176 ol 2O2O. has clearlv stated that in case the polling officer has given the 'Distinguishing Mark'instead ol 'Arrou,Cross N4ark', then the same mar,r be considered as valid r.otes, but in so far as other marks on the bal1ot papers are concerned, it is only the Returning Oflicer u,ho has to take a

.\,,i] , i\ ,\,, It, 1,,' I l clecision. In Lhis particular casc., it is r-tot the case of the petitioner thar the voters \\;ere supplied ,,Distinguishing \{ark,, instead of "Arrou: Cross Mark',, but rhe rroters had allixecl Thumb lmpressior-r on the ballot paper. Once the votes are rejected by the Returning Officer, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file an Election petition challenging the rejection of tire votes among other grounds. In the absence ol anl specilic assertion that the 'Distinguishrng NIark' r,r.as surppIed l:1 the pol1it-rg officer inste:rd ol ,Arrou Cross Nlarl<'. tire ri riL lte tition ltas '.o ieiil. The pctitioncr. cri.r r.r r-t ot l:rl<e: shclter unclcr tl-r c. Orcier, dared 07.1.2.2A2O, passcd ir-r W.P,No.22176 of 2020 as the f:rcts ir-r this case are entirch. rii11!r'cr-rL. 1'l-rc petiLioncr rs frce to challcr-rge the samc rn an Elcctjon Petirion before an appropriate Electron'lribtinal. 7 .

Moreorrer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaspal Singh Arora us, State of M.P. and othersr has held as under: "..,1n uie*- o;f the mode oJ' ch-allenging th.e eLection bll a\ election petitiotl being prescribed bg the ,W. p.

itlutticiy:a.li.tres Act. it is clear tLLaL the election couLcl ttot be calLeci. in queslir:n e:ccept b.,1 an eleciiorr peLitton cts prouicleci un.der iitcti. A(:1. 'l'he bar io il.l.ei'ere-nce i)Lt (:oLLrls tt eie:t:ir:rai ur(tllc.r.s cotlt.Ltti.tj it.i Articlt: 213 ZG r/ ihe Con-sllluiiort rrcr.s cLpparertllil ouL:rlctokeci b4 tlt.t: lltgh CotLrt in ctLlc:ttuincl tLe u.)t1t pe1:iiton. Apart Ji'onL the bar urider t\rilc..ie 243 ZG. orL seti.Lec.l r-,rircirlc..s r/iicr.ii..rcita,ar iiriclar.{rtrcle 22(t oi'the C.r/i-siiirrtl,,,/i -ior-lic t.rt.r1,rLrsr'ol-.s€rlli/tar o-sirte ihc dJLrairall iar rr rluilcrltcriiir,r Li (i.i /iot lr.ili,r,' _/Lr /rt.clli.-sc' o.r' :itar .st(,liri(.,r.ii 1lr.,lisio, .., ,. al.:'.rlior lr.rliiirri lUiri r.i/.sO lric iitrl ihrii r|t c,rtrilr:r.i.l,rii rc,tri,.rr. I lltgE) 9 SCC 5!14

\.\lt..r \\ I, \i. :1106 oi:(ll!l for the same purpose bg ct defeated candidate lnd b'een dismissed bg: the High Court'"

8.

In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances' and the 1aw laid down by the Hon'b1e High Court, the writ petition fails, ancl the same is, accordingly, dismissed lf the petitioner is so aclvised, she iS ahvays at libert.v to lile an Election Petition before the Eiection Tribunal raising a1l the grounds raisecl in this writ petition and this order does t-tot come in her way in doing so.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There sha11 be no order as to costs SD/-CH.VEN KATESWARU LU ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR A// SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY'

To,

1. One CC to Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, Advocate [OPt lcl

2. Two CCs to Gp to. rvrrni.ipiinlffi;lilrti;! eld 'Urban bevelopment. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad luu ll

3. one aC6'Sti p. suo"ne"i CaoiS,c. For Elecli6n-Commis-slonloPUC) ;. il; cc io Sri pairrjm Kristrnd Reddv' s.c For GHMC (oPUC)

5. Two CD CoPies.

N/P

HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212020

ORDER

k 1 HE Sr4 rg o + WP.No,23206 of 2020 + 1t Jau 2021 z C) _r.

O t * '.a a?

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS J I