Allowed

Smt. Savitha, v. the State Election Commission

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2023WP/7964/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an election tribunal order that declared the petitioner's election void. After an order-directed recount, the Court confirmed the petitioner secured more votes than the rival candidate who had filed the election petition, and thus quashed the tribunal impugned judgment while dismissing the election petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment allowing the election petition was quashed; the petitioner's election was confirmed and the election petition was dismissed.

Smt. Savitha, Vs the State Election Commission — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:26002 WP No. 7964 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.7964 OF 2023 (LB-ELE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SAVITHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O S P KRISHNAMURTHY, D SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANGALI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU 570008

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A V AMARNATHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION, BEHIND KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE, MARKETING FEDERATION, 1ST FLOOR, NO 8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU 6002.

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN AND MUNCIPAL DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING BENGALURU 560001

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:26002 WP No. 7964 of 2023

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MUSURU 570001

¶18

THE ELECTION OFFICER DHANAGALLI GRAMAPAHCHAYATH, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 570008

¶19

SRI M CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O MARIHOTTEGOWDA, D/ SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 570008

¶20

SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O ANKAYYA NAYAKA D. SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 570008

¶21

SMT JAYANTHI B AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O RAVI N D. SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 570008

¶22

SRI BASAPPA P AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA,

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:26002 WP No. 7964 of 2023

¶25

D. SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 570008

¶26

SRI MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O BASAVEGOWDA, D. SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 570008

¶27

SRI MAYEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O PAPEGODA, D. SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 570008

¶28

SMT MANCHAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SRI SHIVARAJU, D. SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 570008

¶29

SMT YASHODHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O P GOWDAIAH, D. SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 570008

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:26002 WP No. 7964 of 2023

¶32

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O BASAVA NAYAKA, D.SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-570008.

¶33

SMT NAGARATHNA

¶34

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O SRI NANJUNDEGOWDA B D. SALUNDI VILLAGE, DHANAGALLI POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK 570008

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. VIKRAM H BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R2 & R3 SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R14 R6, R7, R9 TO R13 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DTD 15.03.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU IN ELE.C NO.5/2021 AS PER ANNX-A. AND ETC.,

¶38

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

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:26002 WP No. 7964 of 2023

¶40

ORDER

¶41

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶42

The petitioner who had contested for the

¶43

membership of Dhangalli Grama Panchayat, in the election held on 27.12.2020, was declared as a returned candidate from the constituency D.Salundi-II. However, the declaration of results were challenged by respondent No.14 herein by filing a election petition in Elec.C. No.5/2021 before the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore. The election petitioner had sought to declare the election of the petitioner herein as member of

¶44

the Grama Panchayat under General(Female) category, as void; to declare the election petitioner as duly elected candidate of the Grama Panchayat of Dhangalli Grama Panchayat under General(Female) category after getting the votes recounted.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶46

inspite of there being a prayer made by the election petitioner that the tribunal may hold a recounting and

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:26002 WP No. 7964 of 2023

¶48

thereafter declare the election petitioner as the elected candidate, nevertheless, the tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 15.03.2023, while allowing the election petition and declaring that the election of the petitioner herein to Dhangalli Grama Panchayat as void and further called for ballot box within a period of one month from the date of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed without even holding a recounting and it is passed only on the ground that the election petitioner had made a written request for recounting, in accordance with law and the returning officer had committed a mistake in rejecting such an application and not holding the recounting. It was

¶49

further contended that there could not have been a void left by passing the impugned order declaring the election of the petitioner as void and not further declaring the election petitioner as the returned candidate. Such a procedure adopted by the election tribunal is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶50

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:26002 WP No. 7964 of 2023

¶51

Nevertheless, during the course of these proceedings, this Court had directed the Tahasildar, Mysore Taluk to do a recounting of the votes and forward the results to this Court. The said order was passed on 12.04.2023 and information was forwarded to this Court that the petitioner herein and respondent No.14 have secured 584 votes each. Learned counsel for the respondent No.14 had submitted that contrary to the information given to this court, it was declared that respondent No.14 had secured 1 vote more than the writ petitioner. Nevertheless, by an interim order dated 12.07.2023 this Court directed all the contestants including the writ petitioner and respondent No.14 to be present before the returning officer/Tahasidlar on 17.07.2023 at 11.00 a.m. and a direction was also issued to the returning officer/Tahasidar to recount the votes in the presence of the candidates. It was also directed that the entire proceedings shall be video recorded. Accordingly the recounting was held and a memo dated 24.07.2023 was filed by the learned Additional

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:26002 WP No. 7964 of 2023

¶53

Government Advocate along with a communication /report dated 20.07.2023 forwarded by the Tahsidlar, Mysore Taluk. From the information provided by the Tahasidlar, it is now found that the petitioner herein had secured 584 votes and respondent No.14 secured 580 votes. 6 ballot papers were not counted, for the various reasons. All the 6 ballot papers which were not taken into consideration were forwarded by the Tahasildar through the learned Additional Government Advocate. On going through the 6 ballot papers which were not counted by the Tahasildar, this Court has found that 3 out of the 6 ballot papers are valid ballot papers and therefore the same can be taken into account. Out of the 3, 2 votes are in favour of respondent No.14 and 1 in favour of the petitioner.

¶54

Having regard to the factual finding and since the recounting was held in the presence of the contestants including the petitioner and respondent No.14 and their respective counsels, the parties before the Court cannot have any further grievance. As a consequence of the

¶55

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:26002 WP No. 7964 of 2023

¶56

factual finding, this Court finds that the petitioner has secured 585 votes and respondent No.14 has secured 582 votes. That being the position, although there may be variation in the number of votes declared by the returning officer and what is found at present, nevertheless, the end result would be that the petitioner has secured more votes than respondent No.14.

¶57

In that view of the matter, this Court having satisfied itself that the declaration of results made by the returning officer on 30.12.2020, declaring the writ petitioner as returned candidate from

¶58

D.Salundi-II constituency of Dhangalli Grama Panchayat,

¶59

is in accordance with law, the said declaration of results has to be confirmed.

¶60

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The

¶61

impugned judgment dated 15.03.2023 at Annexure-A passed by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Juge and JMFC, Mysore, is hereby quashed and set aside. The election

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:26002 WP No. 7964 of 2023

¶63

10 -

¶64

petition in Elec.C.No.5/2021 filed by respondent No.14 is

also dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

KLY

Smt. Savitha, v. the State Election Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitha, v. the State Election Commission

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

Mrs. P.Radhamma Vs Mr Jayasheel G

Sri C M Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Government Class-D Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sharada Vs Assistant Commissioner

Sri Ashok Patil K Vs M/S Future Supply Chain Solutions Limited

M/S Biltech Building Elements Limited Vs M/S Mantri Developers Private Ltd.