2014 (12) TMI 1299 - HC - Indian Laws

Disobeyed the directions of the Telugu Desam Party whip in relation to the election for the offices of the Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson, Zilla Praja Parishad, Prakasam District - Whether the petitioner should have invoked the remedy of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 104 CPC instead of filing Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned orders? - Held that - In the present case, the District Court relied on certain newspaper reports (Exs.B -15 and B -16) to hold that there is press coverage regarding the election to the post of Chairperson/Vice Chairperson to the ZPP, Prakasam District and therefore the petitioner is deemed to have constructive knowledge of the whip. A reading of these two news items shows that there is no mention of issuance of a whip by the TDP party directing to vote in favour of any candidate in the said election. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that this finding of the District Court is based on no evidence/deliberate misreading of evidence and perverse. We also do not agree with contention of Counsel for 3rd respondent that in his explanations dt.04 -08 -2014 to the show cause notice dt.28 -07 -2014 issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner had not raised the plea that his signatures were forged on the acknowledgments of the whips. The petitioner had clearly stated that he was not in Ongole town on 12.7.2014 and there was no possibility for him to sign the alleged whips. Thus petitioner has implied that his signatures were forged on acknowledgements. I do no agree with plea of 3rd respondent that a reading of the explanations of petitioner suggest that the petitioner is implying that blank whip forms on which his signatures were obtained for the election scheduled on 05 -07 -2014 and which later got postponed to 13 -07 -2014 were misused by filling them up. I have read the explanations and it does not appear to be so. When the petitioner had disputed his signatures on the acknowledgments of whips and contended that they are forged and the whips are fabricated, by wrongly placing the burden of proof on the petitioner to prove that he did not sign the whips, the District Court appears to have come to a wrong conclusion. In this view of the matter, prima facie, the impugned order passed by the District Court suffers from error apparent on the face of record in as much as it has not considered mandatory statutory Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules; has given findings based on no evidence/deliberate misreading of evidence perversely; and also wrongly placed burden of proof of petitioner to prove that he did not sign the acknowledgements of whips. This, in my opinion, has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner warranting interference in Writ jurisdiction. Since the Writ Petitions satisfy the parameters for interference in a Writ of Certiorari by this Court; they are accordingly allowed and the orders on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole are quashed; consequently, the orders of the 1st respondent disqualifying the petitioner as ZPTC Member, Ponnaluru and consequently, as Chairperson, Zilla Praja Parishad, Prakasam District, are suspended. The District Court is directed to dispose of both E.O.Ps in accordance with law uninfluenced by the order dt.11.7.2014 or its order dt.7.10.2014 or this order, expeditiously within 6 months from date of receipt of copy of this order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the disqualification of the petitioner by the District Collector.
2. Validity of the whips issued by the TDP party.
3. Compliance with Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules relating to the conduct of elections.
4. Maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Disqualification of the Petitioner:
The petitioner was disqualified by the District Collector for disobeying the TDP party whip during the elections for the offices of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Zilla Praja Parishad, Prakasam District. The petitioner contested this disqualification, arguing that he did not receive the whips and that his signatures on the whips were forged. The District Collector rejected the petitioner's defense and declared the petitioner disqualified.

2. Validity of the Whips Issued by the TDP Party:
The petitioner contended that the whips issued by the TDP party were invalid as they were not issued in compliance with Rule 22 of the Rules. Specifically, the whips were issued by the District President of the TDP party, not by the State President or a person authorized by him. The court found that the whips did not bear the seal and signature of the State President or his authorized representative, making them invalid.

3. Compliance with Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules:
The court held that Rules 21 and 22 are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to. Rule 21 requires that the authorization of candidates be done by the State President or a person authorized by him, and Rule 22 requires that the appointment of a whip be communicated by the State President or his authorized representative under his seal and signature. The court found that these rules were not complied with, as the whips and authorizations were issued by the District President without the necessary seal and signature of the State President or his authorized representative.

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions Under Article 226:
The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It rejected the contention that the petitioner should have filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 104 CPC. The court noted that there is no specific provision for appeal against such orders under the AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and that a writ petition is maintainable in the absence of an effective alternative remedy.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the orders of the District Court and the District Collector, suspending the disqualification of the petitioner as ZPTC Member and Chairperson of Zilla Praja Parishad, Prakasam District. The court directed the District Court to dispose of the election petitions expeditiously within six months. The court also dismissed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to conduct elections for the post of Chairperson of Zilla Praja Parishad, Ongole, Prakasam District.