PEDDAPALLY PADMAVATHI Vs. THOGARI RENUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is intrinsically connected with each other, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) On 19/7/2022, this Court while admitting the writ petitions has granted interim suspension of the common judgment dtd. 14/7/2022 passed by the Election Tribunal in OP Nos.1 and 2 of 2019.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed in W.P. No.29737 of 2022 along with a vacate stay petition. Further, in both the writ petitions additional counters have also been filed. It is mainly contended that the Election Tribunal having conducted a full-fledged trial in the Election OPs filed by the contesting respondents has passed the impugned common order holding that the petitioner is having more than two children after the cut off date i.e. 31/5/1995. That the petitioner has incurred automatic disqualification under Sec. 21 (3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (in short 'the Act') as she is having three children. That the petitioner has failed to substantiate her claim that in the second delivery she gave birth to twin boys on 1/9/2001. The Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the petitioner and passed the impugned order based on the documentary evidence. It is further urged that even for the sake of argument the contention of the petitioner that she has given birth to twins on 1/9/2001 is taken to be true, still the Act does not permit any exemption under Sec. 21 (3) of the Act. That the Tribunal has given a reasoned order and the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order and that the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the petitioner has taken the plea that she gave birth to twins on 1/9/2001 and in support of her case, she has produced Date of Birth Certificates issued by the Registrar of Birth and Deaths, letter issued by the Director of Vijay Marie Hospital, Hyderabad, and also the bonafide certificates of the children issued by Sai Ram High School, Hyderabad. However, the Tribunal has disbelieved the said documents after careful examination of the contra documents produced by the contesting respondents herein. Hence, the petitioner cannot again make averments with regard to the genuineness or authenticity of the documents, which were already marked and relied by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that after finding that the Registrar of Birth and Deaths has issued two different Date of Birth Certificates to the petitioner and respondent No.5, at paragraph Nos.29 and 30 of the impugned common order dtd. 14/7/2022, the Tribunal has expressed doubt about the veracity of the said certificates and pointed out that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 took no steps to examine the Registrar of Birth and Deaths and therefore concluded that the said Date of Birth Certificates filed by the petitioner are of no help in determining the lis.