Dismissed¶43

Mrs P Kalavathi v. the State Election Commission

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2025WP/16168/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

quo warranto; writ petition under Article 226; Councillor election Ward No.6 Madikeri Municipality; Madikeri City Municipal Council; caste certificate annulled; caste certificate issued by Tahsildar; Devanga Community BCM-A category; Muslim religion claim; term of Councillor expired; petition dismissed as infructuous; State Election Commission; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; R. Nataraj J.; WP No. 16168 of 2017; decided 30 October 2025.

What did the court decide?

Since the term of respondent No.6 as Councillor has expired, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending; the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. The quo warranto and mandamus claims were not decided on merits. ¶38

Mrs P Kalavathi Vs the State Election Commission — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:43508 WP No. 16168 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 16168 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MRS. P. KALAVATHI W/O PURUSHOTHAMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2/58, BLOCK NO.2 OF C.M.C NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE MAHADEVPET, MADIKERI TOWN KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION BEHIND K.S.C.M.F BUILDING NO.8, 1^ST FLOOR, CUNNIGHAM ROAD BANGALORE - 560 052. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

¶16

MADIKERI CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MADIKERI - 571 201 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶17

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI - 571 215.

¶18

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADIKERI SUB DIVISION KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI - 571 201.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43508 WP No. 16168 of 2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR MADIKERI TALUK MADIKERI - 571 201.

¶22

MRS. THAJASUM ARRA W/O ELIYAS D.L AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.7/51/3, HILL ROAD, MADIKERI TOWN MADIKERI DISTRICT - 571 201.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. K.S. ANASUYADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5;

¶25

SRI. SUNEEL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6;

¶26

RESPONDENT NO.1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶27

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO OUSTING THE RESPONDENT NO.6 FROM THE OFFICE OF COUNCILOR OF WARD NO.6 MADIKERI MUNICIPALITY AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO DECLARE THE PETITIONER AS HAVING BEEN ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE COUNCILOR OF WARD NO.6 MADIKERI MUNICIPALITY.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of quo

¶32

warranto challenging the election of the respondent No.6 as a Councillor from Ward No.6 of the respondent No.2. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:43508 WP No. 16168 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to declare the petitioner as having been elected.

¶37

It appears that the petitioner, who belongs to Devanga Community which falls in the BCM-A category, had contested the election to the post of Councillor in respect of Ward No.6 Mahadevpet of respondent No.2. Respondent No.6 had also contested to the said post claiming that she belonged to Muslim religion on the strength of a caste certificate issued by the respondent No.5. However, after a series of litigations, the caste certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.6 was annulled. The respondent No.6 has not challenged the same. It is based upon this that the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of quo warranto to declare that the respondent No.6 cannot continue as the Councillor from Ward No.6 of the respondent No.2. She has also sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to declare her as a returned candidate to the office of the Councillor of Ward No.6 of the respondent No.2.

¶38