Dismissed

Priya Krishna v. the Returning Officer

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2021WA/3829/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order upholding the rejection of an application to tally VVPAT slips with EVM votes. This Court dismissed the appeal as an academic exercise, observing that the appellant, a defeated candidate, had not filed an election petition to challenge the election result, rendering the writ proceedings devoid of practical consequence.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against the order of the Single Judge was dismissed.

Priya Krishna Vs the Returning Officer — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

W.A.No. 3829/2019 (GM – RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Priya Krishna, Son of Sri. M.Krishnappa, Aged about 35 years, Residing at No.2937/38E, ‘GOVARDHANA PRIYA’ Service Road, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040. … Appellant

¶11

(By Sri. Dhananjay K.V., Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

The Returning Officer For the Govindaraja Nagar, Assembly Constituency 166, Palike soudha, 14^th Cross, Chandra Layout 1^st Stage, Bengaluru – 560 072. (Now working as Deputy Secretary; BDA) C/o. The Office of Chief Electoral Officer Karnataka At Nircachana Nilaya Seshadri Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶14

The Chief Electoral Officer Karnataka,

¶15

¶16

At Nirvachana Nilaya, Seshadri Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶17

The Election Commission of India, At Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶18

… Respondents

¶19

(By Sri. Manu Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1 to R-3 )

¶20

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 praying to set aside the Order and Judgment passed on 19-September-2019 by a learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.27019 of 2018 [GM – RES], for the reasons aforestated and etc.

¶21

This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, NAGARATHNA, J., delivered the following:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

We have heard Sri Dhananjay K.V., learned counsel

¶24

for appellant and Sri Manu Kulkarni, learned counsel

¶25

appearing for respondents.

¶26

The appellant, who is a defeated candidate in the Govindrajanagar Legislative Constituency of Bengaluru, has assailed the legality and correctness of order dated 19.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.27019/2018.

¶27

¶28

Briefly stated, the facts are that election to the Govindrajanagar Legislative Constituency along with all other constituencies in the State of Karnataka were conducted on 12.05.2018. The counting of votes was on 15.05.2018. During the process of counting of votes, the appellant herein filed an application before the Returning Officer under Rule 56D of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’, for the sake brevity) at about 1.09 p.m., requesting for tally of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with the votes cast through Electronic Voting Machine. The Returning Officer considered the said application and by order passed on the same day, rejected the said application. A copy of the said order is produced at Annexure-A. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the writ petition.

¶29

The learned Single Judge, on consideration of rival contentions, has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

¶30

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the appellant is a defeated candidate and he has not preferred any election petition assailing the result of the election held to the Govindrajanagara Legislative constituency. That the appellant is not really concerned with the outcome of the election held in the particular constituency. The appellant is, however, interested in the purity of the electoral process and therefore, made the application under Rule 56D of the Rules. He contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition, thereby sustaining the order of the Returning Officer. Hence, the appeal calls for interference.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to the written arguments filed before the learned Single Judge which is produced at pages 153 to 164 and particularly to paragraph 18 of the said written arguments. He also contended that the election petition could not have been maintained with regard to the

¶33

¶34

rejection of the application filed by the appellant herein. The only remedy the appellant had was to file a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He contended that in the circumstances, the impugned order ought to be set aside and the writ petition would have to be allowed on merits.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents sought to submit that writ petition itself was not maintainable. However, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. That there is no merit in this writ appeal and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed in limine .

¶36

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for respective parties and perused the impugned order.

¶37

We find that the appeal would not call for any interference for the reason that the writ petitioner, who is a defeated candidate, has not chosen to file any

¶38

¶39

election petition to challenge the outcome of the election. In fact, learned counsel for the appellant also very fairly submitted that the appellant did not file any election petition for the reason that he did not want to assail the outcome of the poll. That apart, it is also noted that the period of limitation for filing of election petition expired 45 days immediately after the result of the poll was announced.

¶40

However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the application filed by the appellant under Rule 56D of the Rules ought to have been allowed and there ought to have been a tally with regard to the data in the VVPAT slips with the Electronic Voting Machine and that the learned Single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition by sustaining the order of the Returning Officer.

¶41

We can only answer the said contention by reiterating the fact that when the appellant is not interested in assailing the outcome of the election, we

¶42

¶43

find that filing of the writ petition and thereafter this appeal is purely an academic exercise. In the circumstances, we find it wholly unnecessary to answer the contention of learned counsel for the appellant insofar as correctness or otherwise of the impugned order is concerned.

¶44

Although learned counsel for respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable, we do not wish to go into that controversy as the learned Single Judge has entertained the writ petition and has passed the impugned order. It may be that the challenge to the impugned order could not have been taken up by way of an election petition. That is not relevant, but what is relevant in the instant case is the appellant has accepted the outcome of the poll and has not challenged his defeat before the appropriate forum. Therefore, we think that filing of the writ petition assailing the order of the Returning Officer was also an academic exercise.

¶45

¶46

We have perused the order of the learned single Judge impugned in this appeal as well as Rule 56D of the Rules. On a reading of the said Rule, it is noted that the application filed has to be decided subject to general or special guidelines, as may be issued by the Central Government.

¶47

The Election Commission of India has issued certain guidelines. On the basis of the said guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India, the order of the Returning Officer has been scrutinized by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.9. Learned single Judge has held that the Returning Officer had passed the order in accordance with the statutory mandate contained in Rule 63 of the Rules as well as the guidelines framed by the Election Commission of India. Therefore, the said order was not perverse nor did it suffer from the vice of non application of mind.

¶48

¶49

Learned single Judge has also noted that quashing of the order of the Returning Officer and remanding the matter for fresh decision would be an exercise in futility. We agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge and we reiterate that in the absence of the petitioner having any interest in the outcome of the poll, the challenge to the order of the Returning Officer was purely and academic exercise.

¶50

Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

PKS

Priya Krishna v. the Returning Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Krishna v. the Returning Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B D Mukunda Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Nagaraj

Smt Anasuya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri O Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Mfar Developers Private Limited Vs the Union of India

Mfar Developers Private Limited Vs the Union of India