Dismissed

Smt. Bharathi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Sept 2021WP/3788/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the election result of the Srinivasasandra Gram Panchayat. The court held elections were validly conducted despite a tie and a recount, and the Returning Officer lacked authority to postpone the declaration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the election result in favor of the 8th respondent is upheld.

Smt. Bharathi Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.3788 OF 2021 (LB-ELE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BHARATHI W/O SHANMUGAM AGED 40 YEARS, MEMBER, KRISHNARAJAPURA.

¶9

SMT. TILAKAVATHI W/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED 39 YEARS, MEMBER BENNAVARA.

¶10

SMT. TAJUN BEE W/O PAASHA SAB AGED 50 YEARS, MEMBER KRISHNARAJAPURA.

¶11

SHRI NANDISHA S., S/O SRINIVASA REDDY AGED 34 YEARS, MEMBER KARADAGUR.

¶12

SHRI VASANTHA REDDY S/O SUBBA REDDY AGED 51 YEARS, MEMBER

¶13

¶14

KRISHNARAJAPURA.

¶15

SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O DODDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MEMBER CHINCHANDLAHALLI.

¶16

SMT. AMRUTHA W/O MUNIRAJU G., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, MEMBER KARADAGUR.

¶17

KUM. MADHAVAI S., D/O SEENAPPA AGED 26 YEARS, MEMBER PEELAVARA.

¶18

SMT. GEETHAKALA W/O VENKATASWAMY AGED 53 YEARS, MEMBER BENNAVARA.

¶19

SHRI GAJENDRA J., S/O JAYARAMA REDDY AGED 46 YEARS, MEMBER BENNAVARA. ALL ARE MEMBERS OF SRINIVASASANDRA GRAM PANCHAYATH SRINIVASASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, KGF TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 121.

¶20

... PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI RAGUPATHY K., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶22

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶25

THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052.

¶26

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 101.

¶27

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION, NEAR COURT CIRCLE KOLAR - 563 101.

¶28

THE TAHSILDAR KGF TALUK KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 113.

¶29

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY RETURNING OFFICER SRINIVASASANDRA GRAM PANCHAYATH SRINIVASASANDRA, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 121.

¶30

¶31

7.	SRINIVASASANDRA GRAM PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS
	PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SRINIVASASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST KYASAMBALLI HOBLI
	KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 121.
8.	SHRI RAGHU S/O NARAYANAPPA MEMBER SONEPALLI.
9.	SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA MEMBER SRINIVASASANDRA.
10.	SMT. PUSHPA W/O JAYAPRAKASH MEMBER SRINIVASASANDRA.
11.	SHRI RAJENDRA D., S/O DORASWAMY MEMBER SRINIVASASANDRA.
12.	SMT. SHOBHA W/O SRINIVASA V., MEMBER KARADAGUR.
13.	SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O BHASKAR D., MEMBER DALAVAYI HOSAHALLI.
14.	SMT. ANITA K.S.,
	W/O ANANDAPPA V.,

¶32

¶33

MEMBER CHINCHANDLAHALLI.

¶34

SMT. ANUSUYAMMA W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA MEMBER PEELAVARA.

¶35

SMT.HAMSA W/O KASHIVISHWANATH MEMBER PEELAVARA. RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 16 ARE MEMBERS OF SRINIVASASANDRA GRAM PANCHAYATH SRINIVASASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 121.

¶36

... RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R, HCGP FOR R1, R- 3 TO R- 6 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R7 - SERVED SRI D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R - 8 (VIDEO CONFERENCING); NOTICE TO R9 TO 11, 13 TO 16 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.06.2021. SRI K.S.UDAY, ADVOCATE FOR R12 (VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 09.02.2021 PASSED BY THE R-3, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONDUCT FRESH ELECTIONS TO THE POST OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE R-7 GRAM PANCHAYATH AND ETC.,

¶39

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.07.2021, COMING UP FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Petitioners in this writ petition call in question the resolution dated 09-02-2021 passed by the 6^th respondent/Assistant Director, Department of Animal Husbandry/Returning Officer declaring the 8^th respondent/Mr. Raghu as elected President of the 7^th respondent/Srinivasasandra Gram Panchayat (‘the Panchayat’ for short)

¶43

Heard Sri.Ragupathy.K., learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.Nithyananda.K.R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6, Smt.Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri.N.S.Sheshadri, learned counsel appearing for

¶44

¶45

respondent No.8 and Sri.K.S.Uday, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.12.

¶46

Facts culled out from the pleadings are as

¶47

follows:-

¶48

The petitioners and respondents 8 to 16 were all elected as Members of the Panchayat in the elections held on 27-12-2020. The 3^rd respondent/Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District notified reservation for the offices of President and Vice-President of the Panchayat along with other Panchayats of the District. As per the reservation notified, the office of President was reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste and the office of Vice-President for General category (Woman) and elections to the said offices were slated to be held on 9-02-2021.

¶49

The 3^rd respondent/Deputy Commissioner appointed 6^th respondent as the Returning Officer to conduct elections to the offices of President and Vice-

¶50

¶51

President of the Panchayat. The Returning Officer served a meeting notice to all the Members of the Panchayat fixing the date of election as 9-02-2021. It appears the petitioners along with private respondents participated in the election in which, the 1^st petitioner and the 8^th respondent contested for the office of President and 7^th petitioner and the 12^th respondent contested for the office of Vice-President.

¶52

It further transpires that the meeting and elections held on 9-02-2021 generated some dispute and disturbances as a result of which, the Returning Officer decided to go in for re-election and re-election was held on the same day and the contesting candidates secured equal numbers of votes. Out of 19, each of the candidates secured 9 votes and one vote became invalid. Therefore, the election resulted in a tie.

¶53

It is the case of the petitioners that the Returning Officer did not conduct the election in

¶54

¶55

accordance with law. When an election results in tie, as

¶56

per guidelines issued by Government, picking up of winner is to be done by lottery. But the Returning Officer for the third time decided to conduct elections

¶57

afresh by postponing the elections to other date.

¶58

In furtherance of the decision, the Returning Officer addressed a letter to the 5^th

¶59

respondent/Tahsildar informing that elections to the 7^th respondent/Panchayat had been postponed to 18-02-2021 due to disturbances by a mob. The 5^th

¶60

respondent/Tahsildar after receipt of a letter from the Returning Officer addressed the 3^rd respondent/Deputy Commissioner that elections had been postponed due to mob disturbance and violence.

¶61

The petitioners appear to have submitted a representation to the 4^th respondent/Assistant

¶62

Commissioner on 10-02-2021 highlighting the fact that the Returning Officer was not competent enough as he

¶63

¶64

has not properly recorded the happenings in the meeting. Pursuant to the report of the 5^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent directs the 4^th respondent/Assistant Commissioner to furnish a report. The Assistant Commissioner by his communication dated 16-02-2021 observed, on perusal of the videograph that was done of the election, that election did take place on 9-02-2021 in which 8^th respondent secured 10 votes and 1^st petitioner secured 9 votes and elections were held validly is what is communicated by the 4^th respondent/Assistant Commissioner. It is this

¶65

communication that declares the 8^th respondent and 12^th respondent as President and Vice-President, that is called in question by the petitioners.

¶66

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶67

submits that elections did not take place on 9-02-2021 but due to mob disturbances elections were postponed by the Returning Officer to 18-02-2021 and even before

¶68

¶69

the elections could be held on 18-02-2021 results of the election of 8^th and 12^th respondents were declared. This is completely contrary to law.

¶70

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy appearing for the 8^th respondent would submit that elections were held on 9- 02-2021, results were declared on 9-02-2021 and he would admit the fact that there was commotion in the meeting but that would not mean that election results were not declared. He would submit that the Returning Officer had no power to postpone either the elections or declaration of results in law. Once elections are notified, it is the power of the Government to take a decision on the elections. The Returning Officer though addresses two letters to the Deputy Commissioner, they are nullity in law.

¶71

The learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Nithyananda.K.R would afortiori refute all the

¶72

¶73

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He would contend that elections were held on 9-02-2021 in which 8^th respondent and the 1^st petitioner secured 9 votes each and one vote was held to be invalid. The elections were held in the presence of all the elected Members. The Returning Officer in view of tie between 8^th respondent and 1^st petitioner securing equal votes, decided to re-conduct the voting process for the office of President and in such re-conduct of voting, 8^th respondent secured 10 votes and was declared to be the President during which time, there was chaos.

¶74

This, he submits, would not mean that declaration of result of the election would become invalid. The Returning Officer adjourned the meeting to 15-02-2021. On 15-02-2021, the Returning Officer recorded declaration of winner in the election conducted on 9-02-2021 of the 8^th respondent as the President. Again there was disturbance when such declaration was

¶75

¶76

made. What happened on 15-02-2021 was only a declaration of what had happened on 09.02.2021. He would further contend that all these facts can be urged before the Competent Authority by filing an election petition and the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶77

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶78

submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parities and perused the material on record.

¶79

Facts narrated hereinabove, as stated in the

¶80

pleadings, are not reiterated. Elections to 7^th respondent/Panchayat was slated to be held on 9-022021 and conducted on that very day. On 9-02-2021 in

¶81

the first of elections both 1^st petitioner and 8^th respondent who contested for the office of President secured 9 votes each and one vote became invalid. This election resulted in a tie. In view of the election resulting in a tie, voting was again conducted by the Returning

¶82

¶83

Officer. In the re-conducted voting, 8^th respondent secured 10 votes and the 1^st petitioner secured 9 votes. As could be seen from the communication, the moment

¶84

8^th respondent secured 10 votes and was to be declared to have been elected as President, huge affray happened resulting in a sort of mob attack. The Returning Officer, on that ground, communicated that elections were postponed to 18-02-2021 and after which, having realized that elections could not be postponed, called a meeting on 15-02-2021 not for voting but for declaration of what has happened on 9-02-2021. The Returning Officer who had no power either to cancel or postpone the election had rightly called the meeting on 15-02-2021. What happened in the meeting on 15-02-2021 is as follows:

¶85

“¥ÀÄoÀ 8

¶86

¢£ÁAPÀ:- 09/02/2021 gÀAzÀÄ J¯Áè ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ PÉÆÃjPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M¦àUÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÁ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ªÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶87

¶88

gÀWÀÄ s/o £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà ¸ÉÆÃ£ÉÃ¥À°è PÉëÃvÀæ 10 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ

¶89

¨sÁgÀw w/o µÀtÄäUÀA J.K. ¥ÀÄgÀ PÉëÃvÀæ 09 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ

¶90

CzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ¸Àà¢ð¹zÀ ²æÃ gÀWÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ 10 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ ²æÃ gÀWÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ

¶91

ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁVzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ WÉÆÃ¶¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

¶92

G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ¸Àà¢ð¹gÀÄªÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶93

CªÀÄÈvÀ w/o ªÀÄÄ¤gÁdÄ PÀgÀqÀUÀÆgÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæ 09 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ

¶94

±ÉÆÃ¨sÁ w/o ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À- - - “- - - 10 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ

¶95

G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ¸Àà¢ð¹zÀ ²æÃªÀÄw ±ÉÆÃ¨sÀ gÀªÀjUÉ 10 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢gÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt ²æÃªÀÄw ±ÉÆÃ¨sÀ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁVzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ WÉÆÃ¶¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ J¯Áè ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉA§°UÀgÀÄ PÉÆoÀrAiÉÆ¼ÀUÉ £ÀÄVÎ UÀ¯ÁmÉ zÉÆA©ü ªÀiÁrzÀ PÁgÀt ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ £ÀqÉ¸À®Ä MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ºÀzÀUÉqÀÄªÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï ¹¥Á¬Ä ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiËQPÀªÁV WÉÆÃµÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ J¯Áè ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15/02/2021 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÄ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ À £ÀqÉ¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÁ w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:- 10/02/2021 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ CAZÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄzÁÝA eÁj

¶96

ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶97

¶98

DzÀgÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:-09/02/2021 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «rAiÉÆÃ awæÃPÀgÀt ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀAvÉ gÀWÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àr¢gÀÄªÀ 10 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ¸Àà¢ð¹zÀ ²æÃªÀÄw ±ÉÆÃ¨sÀ gÀªÀjUÉ 10 ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢gÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÉAzÀÄ WÉÆÃµÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀt JgÀqÀÄ ¸Áj CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:- 10/02/2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ J¯Áè ¸À¨sÁ w¼ÀÄªÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹zÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ 09/02/2021 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ «rAiÉÆÃ awæÃPÀgÀtzÀ°è zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄªÀAvÉ CzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ WÉÆÃ¶¹zÀÝ ²æÃ gÀWÀÄ s/o £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà, ¸ÉÆÃ£É¥À°è PÉëÃvÀæ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CzsÀåPÀëgÉAzÀÄ WÉÆÃµÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¢£À CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:- 15/02/2021 gÀAzÀÄ WÉÆÃ¶¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

¶99

G¥ÁzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ¸Àà¢ð¹zÀ ²æÃªÀÄw ±ÉÆÃ¨sÀ w/o ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À PÀgÀqÀUÀÆgÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÁzsÀåPÀëgÉAzÀÄ F ¢£À CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 15/02/2021 gÀAzÀÄ WÉÆÃ¶¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß WÉÆÃµÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ J¯Áè ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ oÀgÁªÀÅ ¥ÀÄ¸ÀÛPÀzÀ°è ¸À» ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ²æÃ ¨Á§Ä ¥Àæ¸Ázï ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.”

¶100

The meeting held on 15-02-2021 resulted only in declaration of votes secured by the respective parties for the offices of President and Vice-President.

¶101

¶102

Narration in the resolution of the meeting is

¶103

clear that decision is arrived at after looking into the video recording that was made of the elections and the voting. The State has placed a compact disc of the video as well before this Court and has also placed original records for perusal.

¶104

The proceedings after 09-02-2021 and before 15.02.2021 particularly with regard to the

¶105

communication of the Returning Officer that elections are postponed is a misnomer as the Returning Officer had no power to even postpone or cancel the elections. An order passed or a communication made which is contrary to law is unenforceable. Therefore, communications of the Returning Officer in cancelling or slating re-election to be conducted on 18-02-2021 were all communications or orders in violation of law and therefore, are unsustainable.

¶106

¶107

On 9-02-2021 it was not that voting or

¶108

counting did not take place. In view of 8^th respondent emerging victorious in the 2^nd round of voting there was commotion in meeting hall. Therefore, it is not a case where neither voting nor counting did not take place. What remained to be done was only a formal communication by the Returning Officer to the Deputy Commissioner as to who emerged victorious as President and Vice-President.

¶109

The other communications, in the aftermath of elections, by the Returning Officer are all without authority of law. The communication to the Tahsildar that re-elections are slated to be held on 18-02-2021 or other communications to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner by the Returning Officer with regard to postponement or holding of elections or issuing fresh calendar of events are again without authority of law. Therefore, the elections that were

¶110

¶111

conducted on 09-02-2021 were to be given effect to, as it was a concluded election. That was in fact given effect to on 15-02-2021. There was no election conducted on 15-02-2021 as is contended by the petitioners and the alleged non-participation of the petitioners on 15-02-2021 cannot take away the elections and votes secured by the respective parties. As stated earlier, 15-02-2021 meeting only gave a declaration of what has happened on 9-02-2021.

¶112

The submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.8 and the learned Government Advocate sound acceptance and not the contentions advanced for the petitioners, on a sheer perusal of records and communications made from time to time. It is the mistaken notion of the petitioners that elections were directed to be held on 15-02-2021, which according to them was postponed to that day. The decision taken by the 4^th respondent/Assistant

¶113

¶114

Commissioner in his communication dated 16.02.2021 to the Deputy Commissioner narrates entire episode of conduct of elections to the office of Panchayat and as to how the Resolution dated 15-02-2021 came about. It is after clearly viewing the video recording and coming to conclude that 8^th respondent was victorious to the office President and 12^th respondent to the office of VicePresident, result of elections were declared. In my considered view, no fault can be found with the declaration of elections on 15-02-2021.

¶115

In view of the preceding analysis, the contentions of the petitioners are devoid of merit. However, turning down of the writ petition will not stall other legal remedies, if any available, to be pursued by the parties/petitioners.

¶116

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶117

¶118

In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2021

¶119

does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, stands

¶120

disposed.

¶121

Sd/JUDGE

¶122

bkp CT:MJ

Smt. Bharathi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bharathi v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sivasankaran Krishnan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S August Ventures Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt Saraswathi Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

Ramesh N @ Bbmp Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mangalpady Naresh Shenoy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath S Vs State of Karnataka