Allowed

Smt Saraswati W/O Vinayak Dhongadi v. Regional Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2024WP/101278/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a municipal corporator challenged her disqualification for not voting in the 2023 elections. The High Court quashed the order, holding it unsustainable as the petitioner substantiated her absence via medical records citing pregnancy complications. The Court noted the complainant later withdrew the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of disqualification dated 06.02.2024 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby quashed.

Smt Saraswati W/O Vinayak Dhongadi Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8162 WP No. 101278 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.101278 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SARASWATI W/O. VINAYAK DHONGADI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, WARD NO.54, HDMC, HUBALLI, R/O. #150 GREEN GARDEN, GOKUL ROAD, NEAR KARIYAMMA TEMPLE, HUBBALLI-580002.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶13

HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI-580002.

¶14

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

SANJAY KAPATKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DISTRICT PRESIDENT, BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580002.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2; SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. PRAAABE: CHUNAVANE:VIVA-19:2023-24 DATED 06-02-2024 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8162 WP No. 101278 of 2024

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned writ petition is filed by elected corporater of respondent No.2/Corporation feeling aggrieved by the order of disqualification passed by 1^st respondent vide order dated 06.02.2024 as per Annexure-D.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶25

HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶26

The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether respondent No.1 while entertaining the complaint lodged by respondent No.3 was justified in disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that she has willfully abstained for voting in the elections held on 20.06.2023 for the post of Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

¶27

On examining the order under challenge, this Court is of the view that the said order is not sustainable. The petitioner to substantiate her absence placed reliance on the medical records. Though respondent No.1 has taken cognizance of the medical records and has also recorded a finding that

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8162 WP No. 101278 of 2024

¶29

respondent No.3/complainant has failed to substantiate that medical records are not genuine, however proceeds to disqualify the petitioner by invoking Section 3(1)(b) of The Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition Of Defection) Act-1987 (for short ‘the Act).

¶30

Before I proceed further, this Court deems fit to cull out findings recorded by the 1^st respondent-Regional Commissioner while disqualifying the petitioner. The relevant portion is extracted, which reads as under;

¶31

� � ��1�� !"� # � �$ � % � � � # � &� '(# � ) � � + � ,� �- � � � � � � .� � /� �� $0"1� � � � � ��23 � 4�� - � �� # � & 5�/!"� � �� +��6 � 19.06.2023 �� 1�� # �� �� 7�8�� 7�89 � : +�8��.� ��1� � � ;�� <�� =>�?$ � @# � � � 0"�A � � � 8�� '(# � ) �- � � � � � � .� � �7�� 8��+��6 � 20.06.2023 �� ?$@# � B�� � � �- � �- � � � � �� .� � �� C� � D(�� # � � �� - � �� # � & 5� � ?$ � @#B�� � � �- � �- � � � � �� + � # �� C� � D� � $ � 8E � + � � � �# � FG� � �� - � � � � < � �� .�;�� +��6 � 20.06.2023 � � � � H� � �� 7 � �I4J��K�� - � � � 7�+ �� ��0� � � � �� 7��L� � 7�� 8�M� � � � 7��L� �� E � +��%�� ( � � � � �� 0"�� 1 ��;� � � 7�H��!�� $��K � D�� .�!"� �� + � ,�� - � �� 8* � J3��5� �

¶32

� � �� 1 �� +��6 � 19.06.2023 �� <�� =>� ?$ � @# � � � 0"� A* � � � 8�� '(# � ) �- � �� +��6 � 20.06.2023 �� ?$ � @#B�� � � �- � �- � � � � �� $0"1� � � � � � � C�K � D(�� # � � $ � N � D6�7EO�+�� 6 � 20.06.2023 � � + � CH# � �� />�� /+ � � � �+ � � � D� � & P1� � � #�&� � 5�?� �� $ � ;� � � � C� � D(�� # � � $ � � JQ� �� FE��% � � � � � � � 0"�$�� # � � � �P� � � � .�!"5�

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8162 WP No. 101278 of 2024

¶34

?� � �;�� �� �0"� � />�� />�� 0"� ��1� � �

¶35

/�G � � + � � ,��/>�� +�D�� $0"1� � � �� 7�� 8� ��23�� + � � ,��/!"� � � � � � � �� +�D�� $0"1� � � 0R# � # �� + � � ,�7�� 8��23�� + � � ,��;S�01�� 7 � �I4J�

¶36

�K�� - � � � 7�+ �� ��0� � � � ��- � �+ � 654�� <K�� H+�#�� T � $ � $ � � D�� S � � � ��$ � $ � � U �F+�� K � 8��P�� +��620.06.2023�� H� � �� 7 � �I4J��K�� - � � � 7�+ �� ��0� � � � � � 7��L� � 7�� 8� M� � � � 7��L� �� E � +��%�� ( � � � � �� 0"�M� � G � � =� � � � �� C� � �7�H�� T � /� � � V# � � � D(&� W�P� � F�KO+ � ,�M!"�X1� � � � .�;�� + � � ,�7 � �I4J��K�� - � � � 7�+ �� ��0� � � � �$ � � $ � D# � U �� /+7 � � � � 84$ � � � .� � �$ � 8� � & � � � �� W1��* � �� - � # � ?� � S1�5� �

¶37

If petitioner’s absence during the elections held on

¶38

20.06.2023 for the post of Mayor and Deputy Mayor was on account of pregnancy complications, which compelled the petitioner to get admitted at Davanageri hospital, the order of disqualification clearly suffers from infirmity. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 on instructions submits that the complaint lodged by respondent No.3 is now withdrawn. If petitioner has produced medical records to substantiate her absence, Section 3 of the Act could not have been invoked in the present case on hand. The order of disqualification passed by respondent No.1 is clearly contrary to the records produced by petitioner and the same is not sustainable. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8162 WP No. 101278 of 2024

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶42

ii) The impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed by 1^st respondent vide Annexure-D, is hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt Saraswati W/O Vinayak Dhongadi v. Regional Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Saraswati W/O Vinayak Dhongadi v. Regional Commissioner

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

Justice B Padmaraj (Retired) Vs the Union of India

D v Gopalappa Vs State of Karnataka

J K Suresh Vs Chikmagalur Kodagu Grameena Bank

Progressive Liberal Education Foundation Vs the Commissioner

Vinayak Hariyappa Bhatkal S/O Hariyappa Bhatkal Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh S/O Shrishail Bagewadi Vs Inspector General of Police