1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records in Election O.P. No. 6 of 2019 dated 21.07.2022 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently, prayed to set aside the same.

2. The Election to the office of Member of 5th Ward, Gram Panchayat, Lakudaram Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District, was held on 25.01.2019. The petitioner herein and the respondent No. 8 herein contested in the said election. The petitioner was declared as elected having polled 65 valid votes. Questioning the election of the petitioner as Member of the 5th ward of Gram Panchayat, the respondent No. 8 filed Election O.P. No. 6 of 2019 under Section 21 (3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short "the Act") r/w 2 (2) (1)(A) of Telangana Panchayat Raj (Authority to dispose petitions in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules, 2018 (for short "Tribunal Rules"), issued in G.O.Ms. No. 4, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Part 3) Department, dated 29.01.2019 on the ground that the petitioner herein is having three children at the time of filing of the nomination, which is against the Tribunal Rules and the petitioner suppressing that fact has filed his nomination stating that he is having only two children. The petitioner herein has filed sworn statement before the respondent No. 2 for accepting the nomination. The respondent No. 8 herein alleged that as on the date of commencement of the Act, the petitioner herein was not eligible to contest the election of Ward Member in view of disqualification provided under Sub-Section (3) of Section 21 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been declared as successful candidate in the election. It was also alleged in the Election Petition that respondent No. 8 has gathered the particulars of the children of the petitioner from the Veda English Medium School, Kukunoorpally Village, which is recognized by the Government and also the medical records from the Vijaya Hospital, Siddipet, which shows that the petitioner is having three children and placed reliance upon the certificates issued by the Government. Ex.A.8 is the original bonafide certificate of the first child of the petitioner issued by the Head Master/Principal, Veda English Medium School, Kukunoorpally, Ex.A.9 is the original bonafide certificate of the second child of the petitioner issued by the Head Master/Principal of Veda English Medium School, Ex.A.10 is the birth certificate of the second child of the petitioner issued on 22.02.2019 by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Ex.A.11 is the original birth certificate of third child of the petitioner issued on 22.02.2019 by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Ex.A.12 is the child development project officer Lr. No. A/71/2016 dated 03.02.2019 enclosing the family members details, Ex.A.13 is the C.C of National Food Security Card and Ex.A.14 is the copy of new ration card (electric print). Another ground urged in the Election O.P was that the petitioner used corrupt practices and distributed alcohol and net cash to the voters in 5th ward and thereby influenced voters. Thus the respondent No. 8 herein prayed to declare the election of the petitioner herein as void and to declare him as elected having polled highest number of votes.

3. The Election Petition was contested by the petitioner herein denying all the allegations and stated that the election petition is not maintainable and the respondent No. 8 has not made any appeal seeking rejection of his nomination before the Returning Officer who is an Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority was also not made as party to the Election Petition and the Election Petition filed is a defective one and as such it is not maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed. The parties lead evidence before the Election Tribunal.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Election Tribunal framed the following points:

"i) Whether the respondent No. 1 is entitled to be disqualified for the post of 5th ward member post of the Grampanchayat, Lakudaram Village of Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District held on 25.01.2019 under Section 21(3) of Telangana Panchayatraj Act, 2018,

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as having been elected as 5th ward member post of the Grampanchayat, Lakudaram Village of Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District,

iii) To what relief"

5. During the course of enquiry before the Election Tribunal, on behalf of Election petitioner/respondent No. 8 herein, he himself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.14 were marked. On behalf of writ petitioner/respondent, he himself was examined as RW.1 and no document was marked on his behalf.

6. In support of the Election Petition, the respondent No. 8 has appeared as PW.1 and placed reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.14. Ex.A.1 and A.2 are the original nomination receipts. Exs.A.3 to A.5 are the objection petitions submitted by the respondent No. 8 to the respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6 therein. The respondent No. 8 to prove that petitioner is having three children, relied on Exs.A.8 to A.14. Exs.A.8 and A.9 are the bonafide certificates of the children of the petitioner herein issued by Head Master of Veda English Medium School, Kukunoorpally Village, Siddipet District. Ex.A.10 is the original birth certificate of Bingi Akhila. Ex.A.11 is the original birth certificate of Bingi Harshavardhan. Ex.A.13 is the copy of National Food Security Card of petitioner herein, wherein the names of petitioner herein, his wife-Bingi Swapna and his three children namely i) Bingi Pravalika ii)Bingi Akhila, iii) Bingi Harshavardhan, are mentioned. Ex.A.14 is the new ration card of petitioner herein, in which also, the name of the name of the petitioner, his wife and his three children are mentioned clearly. During the cross-examination of RW.1 (petitioner herein), he admitted his Aadhaar Card number as 692485912800 as mentioned in Ex.A.14-ration card and the petitioner herein further admitted that Exs.A.13 and A.14 are genuine but denied that he is having three children. During the course of cross-examination, the petitioner herein further stated that at the time of filing of nomination, he did not file caste certificate as well as affidavit for assets and liabilities and including children details. In order to rebut the evidence of the respondent No. 8 herein, the petitioner herein has not produced any documentary evidence to disprove the contents of the Election Petition filed by the respondent No. 8. Exs.A.10 and A.11 are the original birth certificates of the children of the petitioner issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. The register is maintained under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Central Act No. 18 of 1969). Section 35 of the Evidence Act provides that entries made in such a register in public record in performance of official duty. Presumption of correctness is attached to such entries. Therefore, the extracts from register are admissible in evidence under Section 35 of Evidence Act and the presumption has to be drawn to the correctness of the same under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

7. After recording the evidence of the parties and on consideration thereof, the Election Tribunal has elaborately discussed the documents i.e, Exs.A.1 to A.14 produced by the respondent No. 8 herein and held that the petitioner herein is having three children namely i) Bingi Pravalika ii) Bingi Akhila iii) Bingi Harshavardhan and believing the version of the respondent No. 8 and disbelieving the version of the petitioner, rejected the case of the petitioner, who has not filed any document in support of his case and allowed the Election O.P vide order dated 21.07.2022 declaring the election of petitioner for the post of 5th ward member of Grampanchayat Lakudaram Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District, as void and illegal in view of the disqualification provided under Section 21 (3) of the Act and consequently, declared the respondent No. 8 as returned candidate for the post of 5th ward member of Gram Panchayat, Lakudaram Village, Kondapak Mandal, Siddipet District. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Election Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Election O.P filed by the respondent No. 8 under Section 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 r/w 2(2)(1)(A) of Tribunal Rules. In fact said jurisdiction vested in the District Court under Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, the Election O.P filed by the respondent No. 8 is not maintainable. The learned counsel further argued that the Election Tribunal was not justified in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is not in consonance with the provisions of law. Further, the finding recorded by the Election Tribunal that the petitioner is having more than two children and therefore, he shall be disqualified for continuing as a Member, is perverse and ultimately prayed to allow the Writ Petition as prayed for.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 strenuously supported the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal stating that the scope of judicial review against the order of the Tribunal is limited. Election Tribunal having appreciated the evidence and having come to the conclusion that the petitioner is having more than two children as on the date of the commencement of the Act, no interference is called for with the impugned order. It is further contended that there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the petitioner has incurred disqualification as he was having more children on the relevant date as recorded in Sub-section(3) of Section 21 of the Act and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

10. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Election Tribunal lacks jurisdiction is concerned, whether there is a bar in the Act or Tribunal Rules to entertain Election Petition filed by the respondent No. 8 under Section 242 of the Act, it is necessary to refer Telangana Panchayat Raj (Authority to dispose petitions in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules, 2018 (for short "Tribunal Rules") made in Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. Rules 3 to 7 of the Tribunal Rules deals with procedure for presenting election petitions and the requirements to be complied with. Rules 8 to 15 deals with powers of Election Tribunal and method and manner of dealing with election petitions. Rule 12 of the Rules enumerates the grounds on which an election of a candidate can be declared as void. Rule 12 reads as under:

"12. If in the opinion to the Election Tribunal.

(a) That on the date of his election, a Returned Candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Act, or

(b) That any corrupt practice as laid down under Section 211 of the Act has been committed by a Returned Candidate or his election agent or by any other person with consent of the Returned Candidate or his election agent, or

(c) That any nomination has been improperly rejected, or

(d) That the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a Returned Candidate has been materially affected.

(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or

(ii) by any corrupt practice, committed in the interest of the Returned Candidate by an Agent other than his election agent, with the connivance of the Returned Candidate, or

(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote, or the reception of any vote which is void,

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, or any Rules or Orders made under the Act (A) the Election Tribunal shall declare the election of the Returned Candidate to be void.

(B) If the Election Tribunal holds the Returned Candidate guilty under Clause (b) and Clause (d)(ii) of this Rule, the Election Tribunal shall in addition to declare the election of the Returned Candidate as void, shall also declare that the Returned Candidates shall be disqualified to contest in any elections under this Act, for a period of six years from the date of the order."

11. A reading of Rule 12 of the Rules would show that an election to any office in Panchayat set up can be challenged on the following grounds : (i) the elected candidate is not qualified or was disqualified; (ii) the elected candidate committed corrupt practice as laid down under Section 211 of the Act; (iii) a nomination has been improperly rejected; (iv) a nomination was improperly accepted; (v) a person other than election agent committed corrupt practice with the connivance of the elected candidate; (vi) there was improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or (vii) reception of vote which is void and (viii) there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and/or Orders made under the Act. Be it also noted, in the case of grounds (v) and (vi) election cannot be set aside or declared void unless it is proved that by reason of such grounds, the election of the Returned Candidate has been materially affected.

12. It is needless to mention that a challenge to an election has to be made strictly in accordance with the Rules. So to say, election can be set aside by duly constituted Tribunal only on the ground and only after following the procedure found in the Act and the Rules and no other ground or no other procedure can be read into the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules prescribes that an election petition shall be presented within thirty days from the date of declaration of result of election. The Election Tribunal has no power to entertain petition submitted after a period of prescribed limitation. In case elected/Returned Candidate was suffering from disqualifications at the time of election or became disqualified subsequently, the remedy for a voter or for any person aggrieved by a situation where a disqualified person occupied a public office, Section 27(1) of the Act takes care of such a situation. The same reads as under:

"27. Authority to decide questions of disqualification of members.

1) Where an allegation is made that any person who is elected as a member of a Gram Panchayat is not qualified or has become disqualified under sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 by any voter or authority to the Panchayat Secretary in writing and the Panchayat Secretary has given intimation of such allegation to the member through the District Panchayat Officer and such member disputes the correctness of the allegation so made, or where any member himself entertains any doubt whether, or not he has become disqualified under any of those sections, such member or any other member may, and the Panchayat Secretary, at the direction of the Gram Panchayat or the District Collector shall, within a period of two months from the date on which such intimation is given or doubt is entertained, as the case may be, apply to the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which office of the Gram Panchayat is situated for decision."

13. A reading of Section 27(1) of the Act shows that when a member of Gram Panchayat becomes disqualified under Sections 21, 22, 23 of the Act etc., or said elected member is not qualified for the Office, any voter or authority can give a complaint to executive authority in writing, and then latter after enquiry has to give intimation to member. In case of any doubt that an elected member has become disqualified or is not qualified, the voter, the aggrieved person or member or the Commissioner can apply to the District Court for a decision on the question whether a member is not qualified or has become disqualified. Thus Section 27 of the Act operates altogether in different situation.

14. In Mellimi Lakshmikantam v. Election Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and others 2008(1) ALT 388 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:

"7. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions makes it clear that while the question as to whether a person elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat is not qualified or has become disqualified under Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, etc. can be decided under Section 22(1) by the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the office of the Gram Panchayat is situated, an election to any post under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 can be called in question only by presenting an election petition to the Tribunal specified in Rule 2(2)(a) of the Rules and adjudicated by such Tribunal if it is satisfied about existence of either of the grounds enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 12. Though the provisions of Section 22(1) and Rule 12(a) read with Section 233 appear to be overlapping, the person seeking to challenge the election has the option to avail either of the remedies. In a given case, the aggrieved person (this term includes 'a voter') for the purpose of Section 22(1) can file a petition to the District Court under Section 22(1) even though an election petition may not have been filed within the prescribed time under Section 233 read with Rules 2(2)(i)(a) and 3. In M. Jagannadha Rao v. Government of A.P. and Ors. (3 supra), the learned Single Judge held that the remedies available under Sections 22 and 233 are simultaneous and a person who has already availed the remedy by filing election petition is not precluded from filing an application under Section 22(1). Paras 10 and 11 of the judgment which contain reasoning of the learned Single Judge read as under:

10. On a careful scrutiny of Sections 2 and 233 of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that these provisions virtually operate in different fields and the scope and ambit also appear to be different. It cannot be said that the remedy by way of Election Petition always can be equated with the remedy under Section 22 of the Act. It is needless to say that the grounds which were raised and to be adjudicated on judicial side in Election Petition may be different grounds and the grounds which may be available in relation to disqualifications to be adjudged under Section 22 of the Act may be of limited nature which may have to be decided by the concerned authorities in accordance with the procedure under Section 22 of the Act. Be that as it may, the remedies available in relation to disqualification under Section 22 of the Act by authorities and by way of Election Petition under Section 233 of the Act, these are simultaneous remedies and merely because a party invokes the jurisdiction of Election Tribunal by filing Election Petition, unless there is specific prohibition, it cannot be said that such party cannot pursue the remedy under Section 22 of the Act. If such interpretation to be adopted it would amount to doing violence to the spirit of the legislation in introducing such remedies by indicating separate specific provisions viz. Section 22 of the Act and Section 233 of the Act. Hence, these two provisions and the exercise of powers in relation to the respective aspects, operate definitely in different fields at least upto some extent and may be that certain grounds may be overlapping.

8. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether respondent No. 1 had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by respondent No. 2 for setting aside election of the appellant herein and for grant of a declaration for her own election. A reading of the petition filed by respondent No. 2 on 18.08.2006 shows that she had invoked Sections 233, 19(3) and 22(1) of the Act and Rules 2(2)(i)(a) and 4(ii) of the Rules. The tenor and prayer of the petition filed by respondent No. 2 shows that she had challenged the election of the appellant herein on the ground that in view of Section 19(3), she was not qualified to contest the election. She deposited the amount of Court fees of Rs. 50/-and costs of Rs. 100/-and stated that the petition was being filed within the limitation of thirty days. This clearly shows that the petition filed by respondent No. 2 was in accordance with the election petition under Section 233 of the Act read with Rules 3, 5 and 12 of the Rules and not an application under Section 22(1) of the Act. The prayer made by respondent No. 2 is more than sufficient to clear any misgiving or doubt about the nature of the petition filed by respondent No. 2. If she had intended to seek only disqualification of the appellant herein, there was no occasion for her to invoke the provisions of the Rules and make specific prayer for being declared as elected on the premise that she had secured the next highest votes."

15. In the instant case, a reading of the Election Petition filed by the respondent No. 8 herein on 25.02.2019 shows that respondent No. 8 had invoked Section 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 r/w 2(2)(1)(A) of Tribunal Rules. The petition filed by the respondent No. 8 shows that he had challenged the election of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified to contest the election. While filing the Election Petition, the respondent No. 8 has paid necessary court fees of Rs. 1,000/-as prescribed under the A.P. C.F. & S.V.Act. The Election Petition was filed within the period of limitation i.e, 30 days. This clearly shows that the Election O.P filed by the respondent No. 8 was in accordance with law. Election Petition was filed under Section 21(3) of the Act r/w Rule 2(2)(1)(A) of Tribunal Rules and not an application filed under Section 27(1) of the Act. The prayer made by the respondent No. 8 is more than sufficient to clear any doubt about the nature of the petition filed by the respondent No. 8. If the respondent No. 8 had intended to seek only disqualification of the petitioner herein, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 8 to invoke the provisions of the Tribunal Rules to make specific prayer for being declared as elected on the premise that he had secured the next highest votes. Further, the District Court is also not designated as Election Tribunal within the meaning of Section 242 of the Act r/w Rule 2(2)(1)(A) of the Tribunal Rules. As a matter of fact, there does not exist any authority with the designation of Election Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge. An election to any post under the Act, 2018 can be called in question only by presenting an election petition to the Tribunal specified in Rule 2(2)(a) of the rules and adjudicated by such Tribunal. Though the provisions of Section 21(3) of the Act and Rule 12(A) r/w 242 of the Act appear to be overlapping with Section 27 of the Act, person seeking to challenge the election has the option to avail either of the remedies. In a given case, aggrieved person for the purpose of Section 21(3) of the Act, can file a petition to the Tribunal prescribed under Section 242 r/w Tribunal Rules, 2018.

16. In view of the above referred reasons, this Court is of the view that Election Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 21(3) of the Act r/w Rule 2(2)(1)(A) of Tribunal Rules is maintainable before the Election Tribunal and further on merits also as the petitioner herein, who has to prove that he did not incur disqualification having more than two children as on the date of commencement of the Act, has not placed any evidence to disprove the contention of the respondent No. 8. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Election Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Election Petition filed by the respondent No. 8 and the said Election Tribunal committed a grave illegality by rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner to the very maintainability of the Election Petition, is rejected. As such the Writ Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.