The Telangana High Court in the case Jalagam Venkat Rao v. Vanama Venkateswara Rao observed and has dismissed the application moved by former MLA Vanama Venkateswara Rao’s wherein seeking suspension of its recent decision declaring his 2018 election from Kothagudem constituency as void.
The court in the case observed and has imposed a penalty for an amount of 5 Lakh on Rao, wherein an application was moved by him seeking suspension of the operation of the order dated July 25.
It has been argued by the Rao before the court that the elections are due to be held in December this year and if the order passed is not suspended, serious prejudice would be caused to him.
The bench of Justice G. Radha Rani in the case observed and has stated that as per Section 116 B of the RP Act, for grant of suspension of the operation of the court order, sufficient cause has to be shown. It has also been stated by the bench that there being no such sufficient cause was stated by the petitioner-respondent No.1 except wherein it is stated that he served as an elected representative for four and half years. Further, it has also been stated that since the illegality could not be permitted to be perpetuated anymore and as no imprisonment is inflicted by this Court in the said order, and the copy of the judgement is also being made available same day. Thus, the said court is not inclined to grant suspension of order.
However, in the case Rao was being accused of suppressing assets and liabilities or dues in the Form 26, which is a declaration to be endorsed by the candidate disclosing all the assets and liabilities or dues in the criminal cases which are pending etc, as per section 4A of the Conduct o f Elections Rules, 1961.
It has also been stated by the court that the duty was cast upon him for disclosing as to how the claims were being settled and how he has relinquished his right over the properties on July 25, 2023.
The court in its rule stated that in the absence of any evidence in proof of the same simply stating that since he had no such claim over the property, he had not disclosed the same is not a justifiable explanation.
Accordingly, the said court considers it as the corrupt practice falling as stated under ‘undue influence’ under Section 123(2) of the R.P. Act,