WP/23206/2020 of Mumtaz Fatima Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others on 31 December 2020

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learnedGorrernment Pleader for Municipal Administration and UrbanDe','elopment for respondent No.l , Sri P.Sudheer Rao, thelcerrned Standing Counsel for Tclangana Stat.e DlcctronCommissior-r lor respondent \"o.2. tlre leamccl StanclingCounsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4With 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,ingrclrcl':

"... to rssue anlJ wi| order or direction more particularlAone in the nature of unt of mandamus de-claring theincLction of the respondent No.4 i.e., The RetuningOfJic:er- 148, Moulali Diuision, GI-IMC, in considenng thepetittoner's request for recounti.ng for the Diuis[onMouLcLli- 138, CHMC, including counting of rejected uoteso_f 609 is i egal ancl arbitrary, in uiolation of Article 14ancl 2l of Constitution of lndia besides in uiolation oJ'pritciples aJ' natltrel .lrrsllce. in cantro to lhe circularis.srrr:rl hry lh€, re.s1;( )/1.1.'n I ,No.2 rirlc' Lr .\b. / 192/1'51;Ct:LBs [()tlil( ]i )t))0. dutt'd 0.) 1) )(.)2(.) .ur./ [(/1.!-.) ]i/rt,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.:- ].sttchother 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 thecontesting candidate as Corporator for Moulali- 138 Division,GHMC, on TRS party candidature. As per the ElectionSchedule, the elections were held on Ol .12.2O2O andcounting was conducted on O4.12.2O2O. But, respondentNos.2 and 4 failed to take up the counting process inaccordance with law. It is specifically averred that respondentNo.2 failed to give proper instructions to the ReturningOfficers due to which several discrepancies took place durringthe course of polling as r.r,ell as counting process. When thesame were brought to the notice of respondent No.2, aCircular dated 03.12.2O2O, was issued giving certainciarification with regard to counting of the votes. It is averredthat it is the mistake committed by the polling officers whohad given 'ink pad'to the voters instead of giving 'Arrow CrossMark' for marking on the ballot paper. It is further averredthat 609 votes were ejected on the ground that the votes werecast by the voters through thumb impression and otherdistinguishing marks, which are impermissible. That, thepetitioner immediately submitted a representation on05,12.2O2O requesting for recounting of the votes, but thesame \\'as not even acknowledged nor any orders are passed.Section 20 of the Election Rules empon:ers the respondentNo.4 for recounting. Further, this Court has r-rphelcl thecircrrlar issued br, respondent No.2 on 03.12.2020. Hence,same ratio ought to have been applied by the respondents herein u,hile counting the votes, but the respondent No.4 hasnot acted so, for the reasons best known to him. Therefore,the petitioner, left with no other option, has filed the presentwrit petition.

4. This Court, on 07.12.2020, u'hile passing orders inW.P.No.22 776 ol 2020, has held as under

"Tie I'ela.nclctia -qlale Eiection C'omnri-ssion lin-s thel)oLUc'r [ia ][i-s-sue ]nece.s.srtril clirecti.on.sr,clailjcaijorr.- i/lllirihcr-iilcc o,i'ti:ldttt.iinq lhe., L-Jc,r.irol irr a -/itir ct.icl tnitctrlitil7r)(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 trrLLlair('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]screc:ted conlil.sian. irL I l'Le mincl.s of the L)aters, DcLrtws tttt,.jcolra€-sraiil.s. i\ plctin reacltrtg of the ord.er does not reueal a.sta LL)ho.t u:as clctiJied bg tlLe Telangarta State ElectionComnrl.s.slon uhen he meant "marltinq bg the uoter,'. But inuie** c.,f the spectli.c assel7ion ond subnrisslo n. mcLde by SnG.Vidyo Sctqar. Senior Standing Counsel, appertrirLq ortbehalJ oy ['l'ela.nqctna ]State Electton Commls.slon, th.at whatLL,as meant bg the TelcLngctrta State ELecLion Commlsslon u,,asthat th.e markinq on the baLlot paper bg the uoter other thanLtto', 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:ctclriou,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.altilirr ['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\tSirtlc'l1e'L'ilor [('orr ]rr r i-.^.:- io ri.

'l'ht 'l c:lttttclctrta .ilrtir: ,Ijiecltrt71 Clorlrtri-s.sr11 i.s r,rirr.rtlr:r7l(, 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 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 ]faileclto 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 ]uithdifferent modes. That noticing the said issue [the]respondent No.2 herein had issued the aboue saidcircular. As per the said circular the uotes which [haue]been franchised bg the uoters Luith the distinguishingmarks such as using thumb impression, using pen etc.It is pertinent to mention herein that it is the mistake ofpolling offtcers uho had giuen inkpad to the uotersinstead of giuina arrou) cross mark for marking on thebcilot pctper."

6. This Court,111the order, clated 07 . 12.2O2O , passcd111W.P.No.22176 ol 2O2O. has clearlv stated that in case thepolling officer has given the 'Distinguishing Mark'instead ol'Arrou,Cross N4ark', then the same mar,r be considered as validr.otes, but in so far as other marks on the bal1ot papers areconcerned, it is only the Returning Oflicer u,ho has to take a clecision. In Lhis particular casc., it is r-tot the case of thepetitioner thar the voters \\;ere supplied [,,Distinguishing ]\{ark,,instead of "Arrou: Cross Mark',, but rhe rroters had allixeclThumb lmpressior-r on the ballot paper. Once the votes arerejected by the Returning Officer, the remedy available to thepetitioner is to file an Election petition challenging therejection of tire votes among other grounds. In the absence olanl specilic assertion that the 'Distinguishrng NIark' r,r.assurppIed 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-rW.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 anElcctjon Petirion before an appropriate Electron'lribtinal.

7 . Moreorrer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaspal SinghArora us, State of M.P. and othersr has held as under:

"..,1n uie*- o;f the mode oJ' ch-allenging th.e eLection blla\ election petitiotl being prescribed bg the ,W. [p.]a\ election petitiotl being prescribed bg the ,W. [p.]itlutticiy:a.li.tres Act. it is clear tLLaL the election couLcl ttot becalLeci. in queslir:n e:ccept b.,1 an eleciiorr peLitton cts prouicleciun.der iitcti. A(:1. ['l'he ]bar io il.l.ei'ere-nce i)Lt (:oLLrls tt eie:t:ir:raiur(tllc.r.s cotlt.Ltti.tj it.i Articlt: 213 ZG r/ ihe Con-sllluiiort rrcr.scalLeci. in queslir:n e:ccept b.,1 an eleciiorr peLitton cts prouicleciun.der iitcti. A(:1. ['l'he ]bar io il.l.ei'ere-nce i)Lt (:oLLrls tt eie:t:ir:raiur(tllc.r.s cotlt.Ltti.tj it.i Articlt: 213 ZG r/ ihe Con-sllluiiort rrcr.scLpparertllil ouL:rlctokeci b4 tlt.t: lltgh CotLrt in ctLlc:ttuincl tLe u.)t1tpe1:iiton. Apart Ji'onL the bar urider t\rilc..ie 243 ZG. orL seti.Lec.lr-,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, .., ,.pe1:iiton. Apart Ji'onL the bar urider t\rilc..ie 243 ZG. orL seti.Lec.lr-,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.

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//TRUE COPY'A//SECTION OFFICERTo,2. 1. Two One CCs CC to to [Sri Katika Ravinder ][Gp to. ][rvrrni.ipiinlffi;lilrti;! ][Reddy, ][Advocate ]eld [[OPt ]'Urban [lcl]bevelopment. High Courtfor the State of [Telangana at ][Hyderabad ][luu ][ll]3. one aC6'Sti [p. suo"ne"i ][CaoiS,c. ][For Elecli6n-Commis-slonloPUC)]cc io [Sri ][pairrjm ][Kristrnd Reddv' ][s.c ][For ][GHMC ][(oPUC)];. il; 5. Two CD [CoPies.]N/P

Conclusion

IJ

HIGH COURTDATED:31 11212020

ORDER1[HE ][Sr4]rgokWP.No,23206 of [2020]++CO1t Jau 2021ztC)_r.*'.aa?

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS