Sri. Manchappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 28850 OF 2024 (LB-ELE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . SRI. MANCHAPPA S/O. SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. KODIHALLI VILLAGE, HARAGI POST, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA-DISTRICT-577427

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH.R. PATEL,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA.577201

¶13

2 . TAHASILDAR SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIKARIPURA. 577427

¶14

3 . SRI. SHIVAMURTHY K J S/O. KERIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HARIGE VILLAGE AND POST, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 577427

¶15

4 . SRI. LINGARAJU S/O. PARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HARIGE VILLAGE AND POST,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶17

SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 577427.

¶18

5 . SMT. KUSUMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O. SANTHOSH, HARIGE VILLAGE AND POST, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 577427

¶19

6 . SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O. GUTYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, KODIHALLI VILLAGE, HARIGE POST, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 577427

¶20

7 . SMT. LESHAMMA W/O. NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HUNASEKATTE VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 577427

¶21

8 . SMT. REKHAMMA W/O. KOTRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, GUDDADAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 577427

¶22

9 . SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. GANAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SAHASRAVALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 577427

¶23

10 . SRI. CHINNAPPA S/O. MARILINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶25

GUDDADAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 577427

¶26

11 . SRI. B K SHIVAPPA ELECTION OFFICER, HARAGI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, SHIKARIPURA TALUK. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 577427

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BYSRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1, R-2 & R-11; SRI. MURALI B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-3;

¶29

VIDE ORDER DATED:25.10.2024, NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-10 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN ELECTION PETITION No.01/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIKARIPURA, ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶33

CAV ORDER

¶34

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., in Election Petition No.01/2023 filed by Shivamurthy K.J. (respondent No.3 herein), by which, the election

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶37

of Manchappa ( the writ petitioner) as Adhyaksha of the Haragi Gram Panchayat was declared as null and void.

¶38

On 14.08.2023, election to the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Haragi Gram Panchayat was conducted. To this election, only Manchappa and Shivamurthy were the contestants since Lingaraju (respondent No.4 herein) had withdrawn his nomination.

¶39

In this election, Manchappa secured four votes and Shivamurthy secured five votes, but the Returning Officer declared one vote that Shivamurthy secured as invalid and as a consequence, both Manchappa and Shivamurthy ended up with the same number of votes i.e., four each.

¶40

As a consequence, there was a draw of lots in which Manchappa emerged victorious and consequently, he was declared as Adhyaksha of said Gram Panchayat.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶43

Shivamurthy, therefore, filed an election petition as

¶44

provided under Section 14 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 contending that declaring one vote of his as invalid was illegal. He contended that if declaration by the Returning Officer that one vote was invalid was reversed, he would have been the highest, inasmuch, he would have got five votes as against nine votes and would thus have to be declared as elected.

¶45

There was yet another ground raised by Shivamurthy that Manchappa had secured his caste/income certificate directly from the Tahsildar in contravention of the guidelines and therefore, acceptance of his nomination was improper. In my view, however, this question would arise for consideration only if Shivamurthy fails to establish that he had secured five votes which were all valid and the declaration of one vote as invalid was improper.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶47

Manchappa contested this claim and contended that

¶48

the Returning Officer was justified in declaring one vote as invalid and therefore, there was no infirmity in the said act of the Returning Officer.

¶49

It is the admitted case of both the parties that there were nine members of Gram Panchayat who had cast their vote for the post of Adhyaksha which was held on 14.08.2023. It is also admitted that Shivamurthy had secured five votes.

¶50

There was, however, a dispute regarding number of votes secured by Shivamurthy. Shivamurthy contended that he had secured five votes, whereas the Returning Officer states that out of five votes that Shivamurthy got, one vote was invalid and as a consequence, Shivamurthy had secured only four votes.

¶51

The main question therefore is that – Whether the declaration of one vote that Shivamurthy had

¶52

secured as invalid is correct .

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶55

In order to simplify the dispute, the ballot paper,

¶56

which was marked as Ex.R2 and which was the subject matter of the dispute is reproduced for the sake of clarity and convenience as under:

¶57

As could be seen from Ex.R2, the mark has been affixed next to the serial number of Shivamurthy and

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶59

not in the box earmarked for that purpose, i.e., after the name of Shivamurthy.

¶60

According to Manchappa, the Returning Officer was justified in holding that this was an invalid vote since the mark was not affixed in the place earmarked for affixing the mark i.e., to the right side of the name of Shivamurthy which was specified for that purpose. According to him, the Returning Officer has rightly come to the conclusion that since the mark was not put in the place specified, but next to serial number, the vote would be invalid.

¶61

In order to appreciate this controversy, it would be necessary to consider the Rule relating to the validity of a vote.

¶62

Rule 8 (9) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1995 (“said Rules”) reads as follows:

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶64

“8(9) ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÉnÖUÉAiÀÄ¤ßnÖgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£ÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÉ ªÀÄvÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä EaÒ¸ÀÄvÁÛ£ÉÆÃ CAxÀ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÁæ¸ï (X) ªÀiÁr ªÀÄvÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀgÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ PÁtzÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄr¹, ¸À¨sÉ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°è F GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÁÌVAiÉÄÃ EnÖgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÉnÖUÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁPÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è CxÀªÁ DvÀ£À UÀÄgÀÄvÀ£ÀÄß w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀAvÉ – AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ EvÀgÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è UÀÄgÀÄvÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è. ºÁUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ CxÀªÁ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ CxÀªÁ M§â C¨sÀåyðVAvÀ ºÉaÑUÉ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄAzÉUÀÄgÀÄvÀÄUÀ½zÀÝgÉ, CAxÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ C¹AzsÀÄªÁUÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.”

¶65

As could be seen from the above, the Rule mandates

¶66

that the mark “X” should be affixed in front of the name of the candidate. The Rule also goes on to state that voter should not sign the ballot paper or make any mark which would reveal his identity and if either of these aspects were present, the vote would be invalid. The Rule also specifies that if the candidate has affixed his mark to more than one candidate, the vote would also be rendered invalid.

¶67

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶68

Thus, Rule 8(9) of said Rules not only indicates the manner in which the vote has to be affixed, but it more importantly declares which of the votes would be considered as invalid. According to said Rule, there are only two instances when the vote would be declared as invalid which would be, firstly, when the voter signs the ballot paper or makes any mark which would reveal his identity or secondly, if the voter has affixed his mark to more than one candidate. It is therefore clear that when the Rule clearly stated as to which were the votes which have to be declared invalid, it would be impermissible for the Returning Officer to go beyond the Rule and come to his own conclusion as to the invalidity of a vote. To put it differently, when the Rule specifies only two instances when a vote would be considered as invalid, it would not be permissible for the Returning Officer to discover one more category.

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶71

18. Rule 9(1) and (2) of said Rules would also be

¶72

relevant and the same reads as under:

¶73

“ 9. ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À JtÂPÉ .-(1) ºÁdjgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä EaÒ¸ÀÄªÀ J¯Áè ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£À ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ºÁdjgÀÄªÀ J¯Áè ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀ¥ÉnÖUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÉzÀÄ, CzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀ vÉUÉzÀÄ JtÂ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹AzsÀÄªÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀqÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¹AzsÀÄªÁzÀªÀÅUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃQ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ; C¹AzsÀÄªÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É “wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ” JA§ ¥ÀzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À®Ä EgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É »A§gÀºÀ §gÉAiÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹AzsÀÄªÁzÀ J¯Áè ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ PÀnÖ£À°è

¶74

eÉÆÃr¹qÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶75

(2) UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ:-

¶76

(J) ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀ£À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀAxÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ CxÀªÁ §gÀºÀªÀÅ CzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ°zÀÝgÉ; CxÀªÁ

¶77

(©) CzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹gÀ¢zÀÝgÉ; CxÀªÁ

¶78

(¹) M§â C¨sÀåyðVAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÀÝgÉ; CxÀªÁ

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶81

(r) CzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀZÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ, AiÀiÁªÀ C¨sÀåyðUÉ ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ JA§ §UÉÎ C£ÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀªÁUÀÄªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÉ; CxÀªÁ

¶82

(E) ªÀÄvÀ ¥ÀvÀæ SÉÆÃmÁ DVzÀÝgÉ;

¶83

CAxÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ:

¶84

¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ, ªÀÄvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¢ðµÀÖ C¨sÀåyðUÉ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÉA§ ¸ÀàµÀÖ GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ ªÀÄvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É D jÃw ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §AzÀ ªÀÄvÀ ¤ÃrPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆa¸ÀÄªÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ C¸ÀàµÀÖªÁVzÉ CxÀªÁ MAzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ ¨Áj UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JA§ PÁgÀtPÁÌV wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è.”

¶85

While Rule 9(1) of said Rules states the manner in

¶86

which the votes have to be rejected, Rule 9(2) of said Rules reiterates that Returning Officer would be empowered to declare the vote as invalid under five conditions mentioned therein.

¶87

The five conditions are firstly, if the voter has left any mark on the ballot paper or writes anything which would reveal his identity, secondly, if the voter has not cast his vote to any of the candidates or thirdly, if he has cast his vote to more than one candidate or

¶88

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶89

fourthly, if there was a doubt as to which of the candidates the vote had been cast or fifthly, if the ballot paper was a fake ballot paper.

¶90

Thus, the aforesaid Rule basically contemplates that a vote can be declared as invalid if the voter has committed an act which would reveal his identity or if he has cast his vote to more than one candidate or if there was a genuine doubt as to which candidate, he had cast his vote. Apart from these grounds, the Returning Officer cannot obviously declare any other kind of vote to be invalid.

¶91

In this case, it is admittedly not the case of Manchappa that the disputed vote i.e., Ex.R2 indicated the identity of the voter or that Ex.R2 indicated that vote was cast in favour of more than one candidate. The only contention was that the mark was put at a place not specified i.e., the mark was affixed between the serial number of the candidate and the name of the candidate, instead of

¶92

14 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶94

affixing it in the specified column meant for casting the vote.

¶95

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M.Narayan Rao¹ to contend that it was absolutely necessary to put the mark at the specified place only.

¶96

In my view, this argument is unacceptable because in that case, the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the voter instead of affixing the mark on or near the symbol of the candidate had affixed his mark on the reverse side of the ballot paper and in that context, the Apex Court took the view that it was essential that the mark has to be affixed only in accordance with the Rules i.e., on or near the symbol of the candidate. In my view, since in this case the affixture of mark is between the serial number and

¶97

1 M.Narayan Rao Vs. G.Venkata Reddy & Others – (1977) 1 SCC 771

¶98

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶99

the name of the candidate, there could be no argument that there was a breach of the Rule.

¶100

The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the intention of the voter to cast his vote in favour of Shivamurthy could not be doubted merely because the mark was affixed next to the serial number and not in front of the candidate’s name as specified in the Rules. In my view, this reasoning of the Trial Court cannot be found fault with.

¶101

As noticed above, the first two conditions regarding the voter’s identity or casting of a vote for more than one candidate is not present in this case. Thus, the only question that would remain is whether there was a serious doubt regarding the candidate having secured the vote by affixture of the mark between the serial number of the candidate and the name of the candidate.

¶102

It is to be stated here that the purpose of making a mark against the candidate’s names is to signify the

¶103

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶104

clear intention of the voter that he was supporting that candidate. It is for this reason that the mark is ordered to be affixed next to the name of the candidate. To put it differently, the affixture of mark as against the name of the candidate is only to indicate the preference of the voter. Merely because the mark was affixed between the serial number of the candidate and the name of the candidate that would not create any doubt regarding the candidate that the voter intended to cast, and it would not render the vote invalid.

¶105

This is because the affixture of the mark between the serial number and the name of the candidate would clearly indicate that it was unmistakable intention of the voter to cast his vote in favour of Shivamurthy. Merely because the mark was not affixed in the specified column, it cannot be said that the intention of the voter could not be ascertain with

¶106

17 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶108

exactitude/certainty and it was not intended to be cast in favour of Shivamurthy.

¶109

As stated above, in this case, the mark having been affixed behind the name as against the front of the name of the candidate, would really make no difference in gathering the intention of the voter. The fact that the voter affixed his mark between the serial number and the name of the candidate clearly signifies that it was the intention of the voter to cast his vote in favour of Shivamurthy.

¶110

In this view of the matter, the reasoning of the Trial Court that the declaration of invalidity of one vote in favour of Shivamurthy was incorrect cannot be found fault with and if this invalidity is set aside, as a consequence, Shivamurthy would have secured five votes as against four votes of Manchappa and Shivamurthy would therefore have to be declared as Adhyaksha of Haragi Gram Panchayat. The Trial Court was therefore justified in allowing the election

¶111

18 -

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:6297 WP No. 28850 of 2024

¶113

petition and declaring that Shivamurthy was elected as Adhyaksha.

¶114

In light of this view, the second question that was raised by Shivamurthy that the caste/income certified obtained by Manchappa directly from the Tahsildar was in contravention of guidelines would really pale into insignificance and would not be relevant.

¶115

The writ petition is therefore dismissed .

¶116

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶117

PKS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Sri. Manchappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manchappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.K.Anasuyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Rajesh Jain Vs Commissioner

Sri.Virupakshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. C. Rajashekar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

K Narayana Prabhu Vs the Commissioner

Smt. R Pushpa Vs the Deputy Commissioner