C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, J.

1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

"....to set aside the order passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Kollapur dated 06.09.2022 in E.O.P. No. 6 of 2019 in setting aside the election of the Petitioner as office of the Sarpanch SARPANCH for the Village of Chandrakat, Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District by declaring the same as illegal and contrary to law as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to heavy and irreparable loss by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or direction and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.."

2. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the Election Original Petition No. 6 of 2019 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Kollapur and the respondent No. 6 herein is the petitioner in said E.O.P. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed in this writ petition.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein along with respondent No. 6 herein contested the election of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chandrakal Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, under SC reserved category. The petitioner was declared as elected for the post of Sarpanch, as he secured more votes than others. Challenging the election of the petitioner, the respondent No. (sic) has filed E.O.P. No. (sic) of 2019 before the (sic)II Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Kollapur, on the following grounds:(sic)) That the petitioner has wrongly mentioned his age as 30(sic) years as on 18.01.2019 whereas as per the documents, his age is 28 years as on 18.01.20(sic)9 and the same amounts to suppression of the fact; a) That in the declare on form, the petitioner has mentioned as Ward No. 5 instead of Sarpanch; iii) That the petitioner has submitted two sets of nomination forms viz.. in one set. he mentioned his name as Nagesh and in another set he has mentioned his name as Nagaiah and the signature also (sic) arics; iv) That in one set of nomination, he mentioned that he has paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and in another set no amount has been shown: v) That in one set of nomination, the House number is no mentioned and in the another set of nomination, House Number is mentioned as 4-39 whereas as per voter ID card, the House Number is 1-77: vi) That the Returning Officer has initially rejected the nomination of the petitioner on 19.01.2019, however in the approved nominations list, the name of the petitioner was mentioned as G. Nagaiah and in the successful candidates nomination list dated 22.01.2019, the name of G. Nagesh has been mentioned: vi) That as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of Telangana Panchayat Raj Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2018 for short "the Election Rules, 2018"). if is mandatory for the contesting candidates in Panchayat Raj Election has to disclose information relating to criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and educational qualifications along with their nomination papers in the prescribed format as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4909/2002 dated 13.03.2003. Thus the respondent No. 6 herein has filed the E.O.P. No. 6 of 2019 seeking to set aside the election of the petitioner herein for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chandrakal Village and consequently declare the respondent No. 6 herein as duly elected for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chandrakal Village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

4. The petitioner herein has contested the Election O.P by filing his counter affidavit and controverted all the allegations made in the Election O.P.

5. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Election Tribunal framed the following issues:

"i) Whether the respondent (petitioner herein) and his followers distributed liquor to the residents of Chandrakal Village to attract the villagers to vote for respondent (petitioner herein) and the same is complained by the petitioner (respondent No. 6 herein) to Peddakothapally police and police did not take any action about it or not

ii) Whether the respondent (petitioner herein) and his supporters have used filthy language against the petitioner (respondent No. 6 herein) during canvassing to mislead the residents of Chandrakal Village, which is violation of election rules or not

iii) Whether the filing of two sets of nominations is violation of Telangana Panchayat Raj (conduct of Elections) Rules, 2018 or not

iv) Whether it is mandatory for the contesting candidates in Panchayat Raj election to disclose the information relating to their Criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, Education qualifications along with nomination. paper in the prescribed format and keeping all the columns blank in the nomination form is violation of Telangana Panchayat Raj (conduct of elections) Rules, 2018 or not

v) Whether the respondent (petitioner herein was mentioned his wife assets (sic) the Nomination Form No. III as his wife posses Rs. 50,000/- in her name, or not

vi) Whether the respondent (petitioner herein) has mentioned his Education particulars in relevant column in the Nomination Form No. III or not

vii) Whether the returning officer committed illegality in publishing the list of successful candidates for the post of Sarpanch of GP of Chandra (sic) of Peddakothapally Mandal of Nagabur(sic)nool District or not

viii) Whether the returning officer did not discharge his duties absolutely in electro is relating to counting or not

ix) Whether he petitioner (respondent No. 6 herein) is entitled for relief to set aside the election of Respondent (petitioner herein) as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chandrakal of Peddokothapelly Mandal of Nagarkurnool District and consequentially declaring the petitioner (respondent No. 6 herein) as duly elected for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chandrakal of Peddakothapally Mandal of Nagarku(sic) of District as prayed for

x) To what relief"

6. During the course of trial, the respondent No. 6 herein (petitioner therein) in support of his case examined himself as PW-1 and filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the contents of the petition and got marked Exs. P1 to Ex. P8. Ex. P1 is the certified copy of Form No. III nomination in the name of G. Nagesh, Ex. P2 is the certified copy of Form No. III nomination in the name of G. Nagaiah. Ex. P3 is the Certified Copy of lis of candidates No. 1 to 6 members who filed the nomination papers. Ex. P4 is the certified copy of list of candidates (3 members) who withdrew their nomination to contest as Sarpanch of Chandrakal village of Peddakothapally Mandal. Ex. P5 is certified copy of candidate (G. Nagaiah S/o. Bondaiah) list whose nomination is rejected. Ex. P6 is certified copy of Candidates list, who are contesting as Sarpanch to Chandrakal Village. Ex. P7 is the Bonafide certificate issued in the name of G. Nagaiah S/o. Bondaiah by Head master ZPHS, Peddamuddanoor village and Mandal, Nagarkurnool dist. Ex. P8 is the certified copy issued by Shiva Mahila Sangam-2 of Chandrakal village, Dt. 10-02-2019 relating to the members of that Sangam. On the other hand, the petitioner herein (respondent therein) in support of his evidence, got examined himself as RW. 1 and got marked Ex. R1 and R2. Ex. R1 is the attested copy of Form No. III nomination paper of G. Nagaiah. Ex. R2 is attested copy of resolution issued by Shiva Mahila Sangam-III of Chandrakal Village, Dt. 10-02-2019 relating to the members of that Sangam.

7. After recording the evidence of the parties and on consideration thereof, the Election Tribunal vide impugned order dated 06.09.2022 allowed the E.O.P. No. 6 of 2019 by setting aside the election of petitioner herein (respondent therein) as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chandrakal of Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District in the elections held in the month of January, 2019 and declared the respondent No. 6 herein (petitioner therein) as duly elected for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chandrakal. Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagark (sic) District Out of the eight issues framed, the Election Tribunal answered the six issues in favour of the petitioner herein and the two issues were answered in favour of respondent No. 6 herein. The Election Tribunal observed that the two issues which were answered against the petitioner herein casts mandatory obligation for a person who is contesting as, candidate in the Sarpanch elections. Aggrieved by the order dated 0(sic)09.2022 passed in E.O.P. No. 6 of 2019 by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Sri V.V. Marasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondent No. 6 herein has already filed an appeal questioning the acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner by the Returning Officer and the said appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the respondent No. 6 is not entitled to file Election O.P. It is also argued further that the petitioner secured 103 votes as majority against the respondent No. 6 and the result of the election is not materially affected. Further, the findings recorded by the Election Tribunal in the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 passed in Election O.P. No. 6 of 2019 are perverse and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Writ Petition as prayed for.

10. Per contra, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 strenuously supported the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal and submitted that as per sub-rule(3) of Rule 8 of Election Rules, 2018, it is mandatory for the contesting candidate in the Panchayat Raj elections to disclose the information relating to criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, educational qualifications along with nomination paper in the prescribed format. It is further contended that petitioner herein in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not filled all the columns by furnishing required information. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 [LQ/SC/2002/603 ;] and contended that the voter has a fundamental right to know the information about the contesting candidates, as the voter has to decide whether he should cast a vote in favour of a person involved in a criminal case. Further, it is contended that the voter also has a right to decide whether holding of an educational qualification or holding of property is relevant for electing a person to be his representative. The learned counsel contended that as the petitioner himself admitted in his cross-examination that he has not furnished the required information, the Election Tribunal had rightly set aside the election of the petitioner herein as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Chandrakal of Peddakothapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District in the elections held in the month of January, 2019 and declared the respondent No. 6 herein as duly elected for the post of Sarpanch of said Gram Panchayat. The scope of the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

11. The issue No. 4 i.e., whether it is mandatory for the contesting candidates in Panchayat Raj election to disclose the information relating to their Criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, Education qualification along with nomination paper in the prescribed format and keeping all the columns Blank in the nomination form is violation of Telangana Panchayat Raj (conduct of elections) Rules, 2018 or not and Issue No. 6 i.e., whether the respondent (petitioner herein) has mentioned his Education particulars in relevant column in the Nomination Form No. III or not are germane for consideration in this writ petition.

12. As seen from the material placed on record, Ex. P1 is the certified copy of Form No. III nomination in the name of G. Nagesh, Ex. P2 is the certified copy of Form No. III nomination in the name of G. Nagaiah and Ex. R1 is the attested copy of Form No. III nomination paper of G. Nagaiah. As per the evidence recorded by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner herein did not fill up the relevant columns in the nomination paper relating to criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications. It is pertinent to state that Rule 7(1) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2018, which deals with nomination of candidates, prescribes format for submission of nomination to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Rule 8 of the Election Rules, 2018 which deals with presentation of nomination paper and requirements of valid nominations, prescribes that Form III as nomination paper to be submitted for Gram Panchayats. Form-III is titled as Nomination Paper. Part II of Form-III titled as "candidates declaration" specifically states that the candidate has to file declaration declaring that he/she has completed particular years of age and that the code of conduct prescribed by the State Election Commission has been read by him/her and he/she will abide by it; that his/her name and his/her father's/mother's/husband's name have been correctly spelled out above in Telugu; that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, he/she has qualified and not disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat of Sarpanch/Member of Ward number of Gram Panchayat.

13. The Telangana State Election Commission has issued Circular vide proceedings No. 170/TSEC-PR/2018 dated 21.05.2018 issuing guidelines for elections to Panchayat Raj Eodies As per the said Circular, it is mandatory for the contesting candidates in the Panchayat Raj elections to disclose information relating to their criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and educational qualifications along with the nomination paper in the prescribed formal in pursuance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.03.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4909/2002. Subsequently, provisions have been made on this subject in the relevant rules relating to Conduct of Elections to Panchayat Raj institutions. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 8 of Telangana Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2018 stipulates that every Candidate shall, along with the nomination paper file a declaration with regard 10 his criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and education qualifications as required by the State Election Commission and a the prescribed format attested by two witnesses. In pursuance of the provisions made in the Election Rules, 2018 as mentioned above and in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 243K of the Constitution of India, the Telangana State Election Commission, prescribed revised format for disclosure of information by the contesting candidates in Panchayat Raj Body elections, which are as follows: (i) Every candidate contesting elections to the office of Member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Member of Mandal Parishad and Member of Zilla Parishad, shall along with the nomination paper file a self declaration in the format prescribed in Annexure to the Order attested by two witnesses. Full and complete information shall be furnished in regard to all the matters specified in the format. (ii)Failure on the part of the candidate to file declaration/or filling incomplete declaration, make the nomination of the defaulting candidates liable to be rejected by the Returning Officer concerned as per relevant rules. While filling the declaration, all columns should be filled up and no column to be left blank. If there is no information in respect of any column, either nil or not applicable, as the case may be, shall be mentioned. (iii) When the prescribed self-declarations, have been filed in complete form, then the nomination should not be rejected by the Returning Officer on the sole ground that the information furnished in the declaration is false or defective. Further, the Telangana State Election Commission has also issued Circular No. 287/TSEC-PR/2018 dated 21.05.2018, wherein the duty of Returning Officer is to appraise the candidates during the time of filing nomination or their proposers that if any false information is given or any information is suppressed in the declaration filed along with the nomination papers, it is an offence under Section 177 IPC read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and a prosecution would be launched. Further, the Telangana State Election Commission has also issued circular No. 458/TSEC-PR/2017 dated 01.09.2017, wherein necessary instructions were issued for preliminary examination of nomination papers. The preliminary examination of each of the nomination filed, has to be examined by the Returning Officer then and there on the following aspects i.e., i) If the candidate is an elector of the Gram Panchayat, he/she can contest either from any Ward of that Gram Panchayat. But, the proposer must be an elector where the candidate intended to contest of the Ward concerned. The entries in the nomination paper should be compared with the e(sic) in electoral roll relating to the serial number and name of the candidate and his/her proposer. ii) To make sure that the electoral (sic) with which the Returning Officer make such comparison is the one currently in force for the Gram Panchayat in either case. iii Check whether declaration on criminal antecedents, assets and 1 abilities and educational qualifications as duly filled up, signed by the candidate and attested by two witnesses and attached along with nomination. If not attached to, bring it to the notice of candidate through notice by way of check list. iv) Check whether all columns of above declaration are filled up as incomplete declaration is liable to be '-ejected leading to rejection of nomination paper. In case, any of the column is kept blank by the candidate, the Returning Officer has to note in the check list and handover to candidate under proper acknowledgement. In the said circular, the Returning Officer or Assistant Returning Officer concerned was directed to check the nomination paper and the documents enclosed to it and fill the check list and also make an endorsement about the defects, if any, noticed in the nomination paper and the documents enclosed to it.

14. On examination of Ex. P.1, Ex. P.2 and Ex. R.1, the Election Tribunal gave a finding that the petitioner has failed to fill up the columns in his nomination paper disclosing the criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities information as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Election Rules, 2018. As per Part II of Form-III, the candidate has to file declaration declaring that he/she has completed particular years of age and that the code of conduct prescribed by the State Election Commission has been read by him/her and he/she will abide by it; that his/her name and his/her father's/mother's/husband's name have been correctly spelled out above in Telugu; that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, he/she has qualified and not disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat of Sarpanch/Member of Ward number of Gram Panchayat. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filled up the declaration filed along with the nomination paper disclosing the information relating to the criminal ant (sic)cedents, assets and liabilities and educational qualifications. In Ex. P.1 which is the nomination paper submitted by the petitioner, the columns relating to criminal antecedents are blank. The Election Tribunal observed that the petitioner herein has not filled up all the columns in his nomination papers disclosing information relating to criminal antecedents, assess and liabilities and educational qualifications.

15. In Dural Muthuswcuny vs. N. Nachiappari (1973) 2 SCC 45, [LQ/SC/1973/144] the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the improper acceptance of the nomination has held that there is a difference between the improper acceptance of the nomination of a returned candidate and the improper acceptance of the nomination of any other candidate. There is also a difference between cases where there are only two candidates in the fray and a situation where there are more than two candidates contesting the ejection. If the nomination of a candidate other than the returned candidate is found to have been improperly accepted, it is essential that the election Petitioner has to plea(sic) and prove that the votes polled in favour of such candidate would have been polled in his favour. On the other hand, if the improper acceptance of nomination is of the returned candidate, there is no necessity of proof that the election has been materially affected as the returned candidate would not have been able to contest the election if his nomination was not accepted. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that it was not necessary for the Respondent therein to prove that result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of his nomination as there were only two candidates contesting the election and if the nomination of the Appellant's therein is declared to have been improperly accepted, his election would have to be set aside without any further enquiry and the only candidate left in the fray is entitled to be declared elected.

16. In the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the voter has a fundamental right to know the information about the contesting candidates. The voter has the choice to decide whether he should cast a vote in favour of a person involved in a criminal case. He also has a right to decide whether holding of an educational qualification or holding of property is relevant for electing a person to be his representative.

17. In Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India and another (2014) 14 SCC 18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that every candidate is obligated to (sic) an affidavit with relevant information with regard to their criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and educational qualification. The fundamental right under Article (sic)9(1) (a) of the voter was re(sic)etated in the said judgment and it was held that filing of affidavit with blank particulars would render the affidavit as nugatory.

18. In Kis(sic)n Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant (2014) 14 SCC 16, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the question as to whether it was incumbent upon the Appellant therein to disclose he information sought for in the nomination form and whether the non-disclosure thereof render the nomination invalid and void. It was held that non-furnishing of the required information would amount to suppression/non-disclosure.

19. Thus (sic) dealing with the cases of accepting improper nominations, he Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that there is no necessity of any proof in the event of the nomination of a returned candidate being declared as having been improperly accepted, especially in a case where there are only two candidates in the fray. Further, it was also observed that once it is found that it is a case of improper acceptance, as there was misinformation or suppression of material information, one can state that question of rejection in such a case was only deferred to a later date. When the Court gives such a finding, which would have resulted in rejection, the effect would be same, namely, such a candidate was not entitled to contest and the election is void.

20. In view of non-filling of the required columns as per the circulars issued by the Telangana State Election Commission, a duty is cast on the Returning Officer to reject the nomination at the threshold or he should give an opportunity to the candidate at the time of preliminary scrutiny to fill in all the columns as required in declaration appended to the nomination. It is the duty of the Returning Officer to check whether the information required is fully furnished at the time of filing of affidavit with the Nomination Paper since such information is very vital for giving effect to the "right to know" of the citizens. In the absence of the petitioner furnishing information as required under the declaration, it is not possible for the Returning Officer to conduct an enquiry as to whether the petitioner was involved in any criminal case or not unless certified copies of the documents relating to the criminal case are produced by him at the time of scrutiny of the nominations. The petitioner did not mention (sic) details of the documents if any and (sic) in the absence of production of any documents and furnishing the information, it is not possible for the Returning Officer to comer to a conclusion that the candidate is an accused in the criminal case. it is no; the case of the petitioner that he has furnished required information as per the declaration. In fact, it is the case of the petitioner that such information is not necessary as he has not involved in any criminal case. It is further contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 6 has filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority discussed the appeal. As such he is not entitled to maintain an Election Petition. Once the improper (sic)nomination of the petitioner has been accepted by the Returning Officer and the petitioner being declared as elected candidate, the only proper recourse available to the respondent No. 6 herein is to file an Election Petition under Section 242 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 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. As per the said Rules, Election Petitioner is the only remedy to challenge the improper acceptance of the nominations by the Returning Officer. Therefore, the respondent No. 6 herein has rightly filed an Election Petition questioning the acceptance of the improper nomination of the petitioner and election of the petitioner as Sarpanch. Further the petitioner in his evidence as RW.1 before the Election Tribunal admitted in his cross-examination that he did not fill up the columns relating to the assets and liabilities of his family members. He also admitted that he did not fill up the columns relating to the Educational particulars in his nomination form. Further, he also admitted that he possess the motorcycle house, house, but he did not mention them in his nomination form and he also admitted that he did not mention his occupation in his nomination form. RW. 1 in his cross-examination stated as under:

"As per note in Prakatana in Ex. A.1, in Point No. 2 all the columns in Ex. A1 has to be filled up without blank, but I did not wrote some columns in Ex. A.1, and he adds that even though if Ex. A.1 contain blanks it was taken by returning officer, hence I did not fill-up all the columns in Ex. A1." By this admission it is clear that respondent no 1 intentionally kept columns blanks in his nomination form. One Bangaraiah was proposed me in Ex. A.2 in first page of Ex. A.2. In Ex. A.2, in prakatan page in witness column, the name of the 2nd witness is mentioned as A. Bangaraiah, but it contains the thumb impression of Mashanna, who is Ex. Sarpanch. R.W1 adds that Bangaraiah only make his signature at anywhere but not thumb impression. Both Krishnaiah and Bangaraiah are sons of Mashanna. R.W.-1 again adds that Bangaraiah did not know how to sign, so he made the thumb impression" the above adverse admissions clearly increases the suspicion (regarding lacuna's) in the nomination form of Respondent no. 1."

21. The above admissions of RW. 1 (petitioner here(sic), disclose that the petitioner being aware that. Me has to disclose the information as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of Election Rules, 2018, has intentionally not disclosed the said information in lis nomination paper. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held issue Nos. 4 and 6 in favour of the respondent No. 6. The impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference (sic) this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

22. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

23. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. to order as to costs.