A division bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao, dismissed a writ plea questioning the rejection of a nomination filed for the Jubilee Hills Assembly constituency byelection. The bench was dealing with a writ plea filed by Jankadam Narsing Rao, who submitted his nomination on October 21 pursuant to the Election Commission notification issued on October 13 for the bye-election. His nomination was rejected the next day by the returning officer, who found a clerical discrepancy in the certified extract of the electoral roll annexed to the nomination, specifically with respect to the “Part Serial No.812” entry in the Kukatpally Assembly Constituency voter list. The petitioner contended that the defect was minor and that the returning officer acted arbitrarily and in violation of the Representation of the People Act by not affording him an opportunity to rectify the discrepancy before rejection. He sought a direction to accept his nomination and include his name in the final list of candidates for the bypoll. Appearing for the Election Commission, senior counsel Avinash Desai argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, imposed a specific bar against challenging any aspect of the election process except through an election petition. He argued that improper rejection of a nomination was one of the grounds available under Section 100 of the Act to contest an election result, but only before an appropriate tribunal after the poll. Agreeing with these submissions, the bench observed that scrutiny and rejection of nomination papers form part of the election process and did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The bench relied on the Supreme Court judgment, which held that challenges to nomination rejections must be raised only through election petitions. Holding that no case was made out for intervention, the bench dismissed the writ plea, observing that the petitioner’s only remedy lies in pursuing an election petition in accordance with the statutory scheme.
HC seeks quick action in electrocution case
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TGNPDCL) to take prompt action on a representation seeking ex gratia compensation for the death of a young woman who was electrocuted. The judge dealt with a writ petition filed by Chukka Haribabu, the parent of the deceased. The petitioner challenged the inaction of the TGNPDCL authorities in not responding to his representation, seeking ex gratia payment under the “Per Person” category for the accidental death of his daughter due to electrocution. The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to take any steps on the representation. He sought a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his plea and release the ex gratia amount as per the applicable policy. Upon perusing the material on record, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka directed the authorities concerned to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks in accordance with the law.
HC grants pre-bail to officer in paddy procurement case
The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to an agriculture extension officer accused of dereliction of duty in connection with alleged large-scale irregularities in the paddy procurement process at Shyampet in Warangal district. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Bochu Archana. The petitioner sought protection from arrest in a case arising out of an alleged fraud involving the creation of fictitious farmer profiles and the diversion of government funds meant for genuine cultivators. According to the prosecution, certain officials of the Civil Supplies Corporation and local paddy procurement centres allegedly colluded with private individuals to manipulate the online procurement system, showing fake purchases and diverting payments to ineligible accounts. The petitioner was accused of having handed over her paddy purchase token book to the centre in-charges, thereby enabling misuse of her official credentials in violation of the prescribed procedure. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations against her amounted only to negligence in the performance of duties and not to criminal misconduct. It was also contended that a departmental inquiry was already initiated and that she continued to serve in the same office. The judge observed that while the petitioner compromised her responsibilities, there was no material to suggest that she fabricated records or personally misappropriated government funds. Considering the facts and circumstances, the judge deemed it fit to grant her conditional anticipatory bail.
