The Telangana High Court in the case observed and has reiterated in various cases filed through the week that the writ jurisdiction of the Court in order to interfere with the election process as once the elections have been announced it is extremely limited. The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar in the case observed and has stated while heavily relying on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case Manda Jagannath vs. K.S. Rathnam. The court in the case observed and stated that all claim relates to the upcoming Elections in the State of Telangana scheduled to be held on November 30, 2023. It has been stated before the court in one of the writ plea moved that the petitioner, who being a candidate from the Bahujan Samaj Party was challenging the rejection of the nomination paper of her from the Madhira Assembly Constituency.
Before the court, she contended that the nomination was rejected on the ground of submitting Xeroxs of Form A & B in place of the originals and prayed to set the rejection order aside.
The bench observed and has held that it would be open to the petitioner to move an election plea.
Therefore, the Praja Shanti Party who being the registered political party with The Election Commission of India prayed before the court for the re-issuance of Election Notification on the ground that their party symbol had not been assigned and despite of submitting an application in time.
In the third plea moved, the Ex- MLA, the petitioner, objected to the nomination which is filed by a respondent. The court rejected the objection of the petitioner by the Returning Officer. In the fourth plea, the petitioner, who being the resident of Achampet, went through the electoral rolls and found that the name of one of the respondents was on the electoral roll and despite of her not being a resident of that constituency or a resident of India for that matter. Petitioner then made an application before DEO to deletion of the name of the respondent.
The petitioner in the plea contended that the application was rejected without making reference to the Election Commission as per clause 13.7.1 of the Election Manual therefore the said rejection would be vitiated. On the other hand, it has also been contended by the Election Commission that no representation was required as per the clarification issued to the Election Manual in August 2023. It has been held by the bench that the rejection was in accordance with the clarification to the manual provided and also stated that the grievance could be raised in an election petition. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the jurisdiction of this court to interfere with the process of election once the same has commenced is well defined by the catena of decision. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ plea. The counsel, Advocates G. Srikanth, Senior Counsel L. Ravi Chander representing Y. Rama Rao, G.L. Narasimha Rao and Kondadi Ajay Kumar appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Advocates Senior Standing Counsel for Election Commission of India Avinash Desai, Standing Counsels Omer Farooq and Diyva Adepu represented the respondent.
