Partly allowed

Smt Prema v. Smt . Jaya

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2023WP/10022/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the Election Tribunal order dated 27.02.2023. The Court held the judgment unsustainable as the Tribunal failed to frame issues on the non-production of original caste certificates and did not address specific legal contentions regarding Clause 8-A of Rule 2. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to frame appropriate issues and c

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.02.2023 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Election Tribunal to frame additional issues and examine petitioner from stage of examination-in-chief; parties directed to ap

Smt Prema Vs Smt . Jaya — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24275 WP No. 10022 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 10022 OF 2023 (LB-ELE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PREMA W/O NAGARAJA , AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT MAGARAMANE, SORAGUNDHA VILLAGE, ANADHAPURA HOBLI, SAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577412

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SHARADA N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. JAYA W/O JAGADHISHA K AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT HOSAGUNDHA, YEDEHALLI, ANADHAPURA, SAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA – 577412

¶16

THE ELECTION OFFICER YEDEHALLI, GRAMAPANCHAYATHI, SAGARA TALUK SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SANTHOSHKUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:24275 WP No. 10022 of 2023

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 27/02/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAGARA, SHIMOGA, IN ELECTION CASE NO. 5/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶25

The petitioner who was declared as a candidate elected, became a member of Yedehalli Grama Panchayat, Sagara Taluk, is aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order both date 27.02.2023 passed by the Election Tribunal i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Sagara, in Election Case No.5/2021.

¶26

Respondent No.1 filed the election petition raising a challenge to the election of the petitioner as member of

¶27

the Grama Panchayat. The Election Tribunal framed the following:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:24275 WP No. 10022 of 2023

¶30

:: ISSUES ::

¶31

Whether the petitioner proves that, election of 2^nd respondent in Yedehalli Grama Panchyath-1 on 27.12.2020 is illegal?

¶32

Whether petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for?

¶33

What order or decree?

¶34

The Election Tribunal held that the petitioner

¶35

herein furnished only a notarized copy of the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kundapura Taluk, which declares that the petitioner herein belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. However, the petitioner failed to produce the original or a true copy and therefore, it was held that the Returning Officer should have rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner on the ground that the original or true copy was not produced.

¶36

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after the judgment was passed on 27.02.2023, the petitioner herein filed two Interlocutory Applications in I.A.No.10 and 11 under Section 151 of CPC, praying to re-open the case and re-call the petitioner

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24275 WP No. 10022 of 2023

¶38

for examination in the interest of justice and equity. It was contended that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner and only on one occasion the petitioner was called upon to cross-examine the petitioner witness and thereafter proceed to examine herself for examination-inchief. However, the said two applications were dismissed on the same day i.e., on 27.02.2023.

¶39

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even on the merits of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, since no provision of law is cited to the effect that the original caste certificate or the true copy of the caste certificate is required to be produced. Although it is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 that several other grounds have been raised in the election petition, including the fact that the petitioner had produced a caste certificate not issued by the concerned Tahsildar of the Taluk and therefore, it does not meet the requirement of law as provided in Clause 8-A of Rule 2 of the Karnataka

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24275 WP No. 10022 of 2023

¶41

Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1993’) and that the petitioner had not produced the original caste certificate or true copy as required by law, nonetheless, it is submitted that no such issue was framed by the Election Tribunal.

¶42

Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the in the election petition respondent No.1 has raised many grounds including the requirement of the contestants furnishing caste certificates issued by the Tahsildar of the particular Taluk, in terms of Clause 8-A of Rule 2 of the Rules, 1993. There are many other grounds raised in the election petition and the Election Tribunal has

¶43

not addressed itself to all the grounds raised in the election petition. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the impugned judgment has to be sustained, since admittedly the petitioner has furnished a photocopy of the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Kundapura Taluk and not of the Tahsildar of Sagara Taluk. This itself is sufficient to uphold the impugned judgment.

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24275 WP No. 10022 of 2023

¶45

In the considered opinion of this Court there is

¶46

substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 will not be permitted to point out to a provision of law namely Clause 8-A of Rule 2 of Rules, 1993, since the said contention was not considered by the Election Tribunal and no such finding is coming forth in the impugned judgment. A judgment can be sustained only through the reasons forthcoming from the judgment and reasons cannot be supplied subsequently. Even as regards the nonproduction of the original caste certificates or a true copy, the relevant provision is not quoted. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Election Tribunal.

¶47

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part .

¶48

The impugned judgment and order both dated 27.02.2023 at Annexures-J and H, are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the Election Tribunal to proceed from the stage of recording the examination-in-

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:24275 WP No. 10022 of 2023

¶50

chief of the petitioner herein, who is the respondent before the Election Tribunal. Since, this Court has noticed the fact that appropriate issues have not been framed by the Election Tribunal, the Election Tribunal is also permitted to frame additional issues having regard to the pleadings of the parties.

¶51

The parties before this Court are hereby directed to appear before the Election Tribunal i.e., Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Sagara, in Election Case No.5/2021 on 20.07.2023 at 11.00 a.m., without waiting for further notice. The Election Tribunal shall conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from 20.07.2023.

¶52

Ordered accordingly.

¶53

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Smt Prema v. Smt . Jaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Prema v. Smt . Jaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Shabbir Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

M M Ibrahim Vs the Commissioner

Sri Madesha Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt. Shrimati Dharmapal Shetty Vs the Commissioner

M/S Pjb Engineers Private Limited Vs the Commissioner