Telangana High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Election Of BRS MLA KT Rama Rao

Justice N Rajeshwar Rao allowed a plea by Rao seeking to reject the election petition filed by Kondam Karuna Mahender Reddy. Reddy had filed the election petition seeking to declare the victory of Rao as illegal, null and void and to set aside the same, and in turn to declare Reddy as the winning candidate.

The court noted that in the election petition, Reddy had failed to show how non-disclosure on Rao's part amounted to corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act. The court noted that in the absence of any materials, the allegations made in the election petition were vague, bald, and insufficient to constitute a valid cause of action.

“The election petitioner has also failed to plead as to how such alleged non-disclosure constitutes a corrupt practice or amounts to undue influence within the meaning of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In the absence of such material facts and particulars, the allegations made in the election petition are vague, bald, and insufficient to constitute a valid cause of action,” the court said.

Reddy had filed the Election petition alleging that there was a possibility of undue influence on the electorate due to suppression of material facts in the election affidavit filed by Rao, with respect to his assets. Reddy argued that suppression of such material fact would amount to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the RP Act.

Seeking to reject the election petition, Rao filed an application stating that Reddy had casually filed the plea without any allegation of corrupt practice and had merely quoted judgments of the Supreme Court. Rao argued that in his election petition, Reddy had miserably failed to plead what is corrupt practice and there was no pleading in relation to any corrupt practice as defined in Section 123 of the Act.

Rao submitted that Reddy had alleged suppression of movable assets of Rao's son. Rao, however, submitted that at the time of filing the election affidavit, his son had attained majority and the assets in question were acquired from his own funds. Rao also questioned the election petition stating that the concerned sections had not been mentioned in the plea.

To this, Reddy argued that mere non mentioning of the Section could not render the election petition as not maintainable. Reddy also argued that the election petition was comprehensive and sufficient for the purpose of adjudicating the issue and disqualifying Rao. It was further submitted that instead of filing counter to the election petition, Rao was trying to procrastinate the matter by filing the application.

The court noted that the election petition did not disclose the material suppression made by Rao, nor did it furnish the full particulars of any alleged corrupt practice. The court noted that no primary or foundational facts had been pleaded to substantiate the allegations of corrupt practice or undue influence.

“In the absence of any contrary evidence or material particulars, the allegation that the assets of the son of the petitioner / respondent No.1 were required to be disclosed cannot be sustained merely on assumptions or presumptions. In the entire election petition, there is no specific averment as to how the alleged non-disclosure of the assets of the petitioner/respondent No. 1's son influenced the voters or had any bearing on the election result of the petitioner/respondent No. 1,” the court noted.

Thus, considering the materials, the court was inclined to allow the application filed by Rao and rejected the election petition against his victory.

Case Title: Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao (K.T.R.) v Kondam Karuna Mahender Reddy

Case No: I.A. No.02 of 2024 IN/AND ELECTION PETITION Nos.27 & 28 OF 2024