Justice T. Vinod Kumar of Telangana High Court on Thursday allowed an election petition filed by BJP leader D.K. Aruna, who contested as Congress nominee from Gadwal constituency in 2018 Assembly elections, declaring void the election of BRS MLA Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy.
The Judge, while imposing a fine of ₹2.5 lakh on Mr. Reddy for filing the election affidavit in 2018, declared Ms. Aruna as elected candidate from Gadwal Assembly Constituency with retrospective effect from December 12, 2018. Justice Vinod Kumar also directed Mr. Reddy to pay ₹50,000 to Ms. Aruna towards costs.
This is the second instance of the High Court declaring invalid the election of an MLA from Telangana Assembly. Nearly a month ago, Justice G. Radha Rani of the High Court set aside the election of BRS MLA Vanama Venkateswara Rao from Kothagudem constituency. The High Court declined to temporarily suspend the verdict.
However, Mr. Rao moved the Supreme Court and secured a direction keeping the High Court order in abeyance. The petitioner in the present case entered Gadwal election fray on Congress ticket. She secured second highest number of votes. Eventually, she switched over to BJP.
Ms. Aruna’s primary contention was that Mr. Reddy concealed information about the properties he possessed in his election affidavit. She contended that the BRS MLA did not disclose details of the 24.09 acres of land he owned at Puddur village in Gadwal mandal of Jogulamba Gadwal district. The petitioner claimed that Mr. Reddy mentioned about this asset in a PIL petition he had filed in 2015.
The petitioner told the court that Mr. Reddy owed ₹1.09 crore to banks. He owed another sum of ₹1.21 crore to nationalised banks. All this information was not disclosed in the election affidavit. This amounted to suppression of material evidence and facts, the petitioner’s counsel argued.
The petitioner also stated that there was difference in the number of votes cast as per Electronic Voting Machine records and the number of votes counted. In such situation, the Returning Officer should have counted the paper trail of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). But the RO did not do so, the petitioner said.
However, during the course of arguments, petitioner’s counsel told the court that they had decided to give up the grounds relating to votes polled and VVPAT issues. The advocate told the court that they had stuck to their guns on the point of the MLA not disclosing details about his assets and bank accounts.
The High Court Registry informed the Bench that the MLA’s counsel filed an interim application and appeared on August 18 to present his contentions. The Judge said the court had reserved orders in the election petition on June 22 and declined to accept the interim application.
