Dismissed

Sri Mahantgouda S/O Budigouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2023WP/105368/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge dissent order declined to examine the merits of a writ petition regarding election notices and quashing orders. It ruled the petition infructuous as a subsequent, separate petition challenging the same impugned order was already pending before this Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous in view of a subsequent challenge pending before this Court.

Sri Mahantgouda S/O Budigouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:6680 WP No. 105368 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 105368 OF 2021 (LB-ELE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI MAHANTGOUDA S/O. BUDIGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MAKARI, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI-581116.

¶10

SHRI RANGAPPA HAROGOPPA, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF

¶11

VEERANAGOUDA S/O. NAGANGOUDA KYATAPPALAVAR, AGE: 71 YEARS,

¶12

BASAVARAJ S/O. HANAMANTAPPA BAGOOR, AGE: 49 YEARS,

¶13

ROHAN HADIMANI T High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶14

PRAVEEN S/O. IRANGOUDA GANGAPPANAVAR, AGE: 33 YEARS,

¶15

CHANMANSAB S/O. MAHABUB SAB DODAMANI, AGE: 40 YEARS,

¶16

SURESH S/O. BASAPPA HAROGOPPA AGE: 39 YEARS,

¶17

SUDHA D/O. MALATESH NAGENAHALLI, AGE: 26 YEARS,

¶18

RATNAMMA W/O. BASAVAGOUDAR CHANNAGOUDAR, AGE: 56 YEARS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6680 WP No. 105368 of 2021

¶20

SHANTA W/O. MARADEPPA KADUR, AGE: 34 YEARS,

¶21

KAUSARBANU W/O. MAHABOOB SAB HEDIYAL, AGE: 35 YEARS,

¶22

PARAVVA W/O. HANAMANTAPPA HULATTI, AGE: 56 YEARS,

¶23

RENUKA S. KANNAKANNAVAR, AGE: 38 YEARS,

¶24

SUMA W/O. MAHENDRAPPA NIMBEGUNDI, AGE: 36 YEARS,

¶25

LALITA W/O. KAREGOUDA GANGOLA, AGE: 41 YEARS,

¶26

PETITIONERS NO. 2 TO 15 ARE ALL MEMBERS OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MAKARI-581 116, TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SRI SHRIKANT T. PATIL AND SRI ROHIT S. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTION COMMISSION, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶31

THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110.

¶32

THE RETURNING OFFICER GRAM PANCHAYAT, MAKARI, DIST: HAVERI-581116.

¶33

THE SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT, MAKARI, DIST: HAVERI-581116.

¶34

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:6680 WP No. 105368 of 2021

¶35

ELECTION OFFICER/ THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, RATTIHALLI,

¶36

TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI-581116.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3; SRI S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 5)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.GRAMCHU: VAHI" 12/2021-22 HAVERI DATED 12/10/2021 PASSED RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE K; ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ELECTION NOTICE BEARING NO. KRA SUM/TAPARUM/GRA PUM.A.CHU/VAHI/2021-22/728 DATED 20/12/2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 VIDE ANNEXURE L.

¶40

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶43

impugned order herein would not survive for consideration as the subsequent order has been passed questioning by

¶44

the petitioners before this Court in Writ Petition No.104022/2023. Hence, this petition is dismissed as

¶45

having become infructuous.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

CKK

Sri Mahantgouda S/O Budigouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahantgouda S/O Budigouda Patil 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bagalkote Cement and Industries Limited, Bagalkote Vs Bagalkote Town Development Authority

Anil Kumar Chirania, Vs Ballari City Corporation

Smt. Laxmibai Vs Smt. Sharada

Mallangouda Sankangouda Patil Vs Ramapppa Kallappa Ningannure

Smt. Rekha W/O Dr. Ramakrishna Nayak Vs Smt. Hema W/O Ramakrishna Nayak

Iranna T Gouli Vs the State of Karnataka