CH SUJATHA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the 1st respondent by which he suspended the election process to Ward No.7 of Tirupathi Municipal Corporation with immediate effect.

(2.) The petitioner is a candidate who is contesting for the Ward No.7 of Tirupathi Municipal Corporation. She along with the 5th respondent have filed their nominations. The scrutiny of the nominations were completed on 14.03.2020. However, due to the Covid-19, elections were postponed. Thereafter, proceedings dated 15.02.2021 were issued by which it was clarified that the electoral process from the stage of withdrawal of candidates would be resumed. It is submitted that the 5th respondent appears to have lodged a complaint stating that her signature was forged on a withdrawal form and based upon the said complaint, cognizance was taken and the matter was investigated. However, the 3rd respondent had noted that the Returning Officer against whom the complaint was made was not involved and that one D.Murali Naidu- an Election Agent committed the offence. It is submitted that even if the forgery was committed by a third party, the entire election cannot be stalled. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) For the petitioner, Sri V.R.N.Prashanth argued the matter and pointed out that the initial complaint that was given by 5th respondent was against the Returning Officer. He drew the attention of the Court to complaint dated 03.03.2021. He also points out that in the FIR that was finally lodged by the 5th respondent, the name of the accused is a not shown. He argues that this is a clear discrepancy in the procedure and that the 5th respondent has utilized the opportunity to make allegations. The letters of the Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipal Corporation (respondent No.3) are also highlighted by the learned counsel in which it is clearly asserted that the withdrawal form was submitted by the Election Agent of the 5th respondent and that the Returning Officer had followed the procedure stipulated under the Act and the instructions given by the 1st respondent. Learned counsel points that the video footage was also examined by the 3rd respondent before they informed the same to the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel also argues that assuming for the sake of argument that forgery had taken place, it is a matter to be established by pleading and proof during the course of election petition in a Tribunal and that the 1st respondent did not have the power to suspend the election process. He argues vehemently that the 1st respondent does not have the power of "adjudicating" electoral disputes. It is his contention that whether a forgery was committed or not is a matter of investigation by the Police and a matter of proof during trial in an Election Tribunal. He points out that even if the Police submitted a report that an offence has been committed, still the same has to be established in a Court of law. Therefore, learned counsel argues that on the basis of surmises and mere conjectures, the entire electoral process cannot be stalled. He argues that it is for the election Tribunal alone to conclude that an offence was in fact committed and the said offence had resulted in the withdrawal of the nomination. Learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to an earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5113 of 2021 and Batch dated 03.03.2021 to argue that this Court has already held that a matter of fraud in an election is a matter of pleading and proof and can be established in a duly constituted election Tribunal as per the Act.