The petitioner challenged the rejection of his election nomination due to an unsigned affidavit. The High Court held that defects cannot be corrected after the scrutiny date lapses and disposed of the petition without issuing the sought directions.
Petition disposed of; no directions issued to correct defect or consider nomination.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.10575/2013 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN :
SRI SYED SADIQ S/O SYED GOUSE AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS MUNICIPAL COLONY, 1ST CROSS, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA-577501 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV.)
AND :
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ELECTION OFFICER, CHITRADURGA VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R
Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for
respondent No.1. Sri K.N.Phanindra, learned counsel to accept notice for respondent No.3. They are permitted to file their memo of appearance in four weeks.
Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondents No.2 and 4 is unnecessary.
endorsement dated 25.02.2013 impugned at Annexure-A
be quashed. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the fourth respondent to consider the nomination papers filed by the petitioner and receive the affidavit or direct the fourth respondent to receive the fresh affidavit.
3
the ensuing elections for the City Municipality of Chitradurga had filed his nomination papers to be a candidate from Ward No.28. The Returning Officer by the endorsement at Annexure-A has rejected the nomination of the petitioner. The reason indicated for such rejection is that the affidavit required to accompany the nomination had not been signed by the petitioner.
that the Returning Officer was not justified inasmuch as the said defect was a curable defect and the same should have been permitted to be corrected by the petitioner. It is contended that even if the filing of the fresh affidavit was permitted by the Returning Officer, it would not have caused prejudice to any of the parties and therefore, such rectification not having been permitted, the fourth respondent was not justified.
outset point out that the writ petition at this juncture
4
would not be maintainable since admittedly the Calendar of Events has already been published and the application
of the petitioner has been rejected on scrutiny.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue directions to the Returning Officer to allow correction of an unsigned affidavit after the scrutiny date has lapsed.
Whether a writ petition filed to quash the rejection of nomination papers based on a curable defect is maintainable after the calendar of events is published.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI SYED SADIQ S/O SYED GOUSE
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUHDA, BANGALORE-560001
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA CITY MUNICIPALITY CHITRADURGA-577501
THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OFFICE: CUNNINGHAM ROAD KSCMF BUILDING BANGALORE-560052
THE ELECTION OFFICER WARD NO.22 TO 28 CHITRADURGA CITY MUNICIPALITY CHITRADURGA-577501
A S BOPANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
