Karnataka High Court
G. Mallikarjunappa S/O. Late Nagappa vs M.T. Eshwarappa S/O. M. Tippeswamy on 2 July, 2014
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1062/2012
BETWEEN
G. MALLIKARJUNAPPA,
S/O. LATE NAGAPPA,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. THAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJA, ADV.)
AND
1. M.T. ESHWARAPPA S/O. M. TIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. CHAAPI TIPPESWAMY S/O. MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R.1 AND R.2 ARE R/O. THAYAKANALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BELLARY.
3. THE ELECTION OFFICER,
HUDEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, HUDEM,
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BELLARY.
4. THE TAHASILDAR,
:2:
TALUK OFFICE,
KUDLIGI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANIL ASSOCIATES, ADV. FOR R1,
R.2 AND R.3 SERVED,
SRI.H. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGA FOR R.4)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
13.02.2012 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.1/2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AT KUDLIGI, DISMISSING THE
PETITION FILED U/S. 15(1) AND 16(2) OF KARNATAKA
PANCHAYATH RAJ ACT, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 13.02.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Kudligi, in Election Petition No.1/2010.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge, Kudligi, has dismissed the Election Petition as not maintainable under Sections 15(1) and 16(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act.
:3:
3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
4. Briefly stated the facts are;
The petitioner had filed election petition in E.P. No.1/2010 for declaration that the election of the first respondent as member to the Hudem Grama Panchayat under Group-III-B is null and void and to declare that the petitioner is the elected candidate from 4th Ward of Thayakanahalli for Hudem Grama Panchayath. It was contended by the petitioner that respondents 1 and 2 belong to Hindu Ganiga caste which comes under Group-IIA. They have obtained caste certificate stating that they belong to Hindu Veerasaiva Lingayath caste which come under the Group-IIIB. The respondents 1 and 2 were not eligible to contest the election from the 4th ward of Thayakanahalli which was reserved for Hindu Lingayath III-B candidate.
The first respondent filed written statement contending that the allegations made in the petition are false and baseless and the petition is not maintainable. The first :4: respondent belongs to Hindu Lingayath caste. He is a retired Government servant. The government records show that the caste of the 1st respondent is Hindu Lingayath or Hindu Veerasaiva Lingayath.
The 4th respondent has filed his written statement contending that the respondents 1 and 2 do not belong to Hindu Ganiga caste but they belong to Hindu Veerasaiva Lingayath caste. Therefore, they have obtained caste certificate as Hindu Veerasaiva Lingayath under Group III-B. There is no cause of action for the petition. The 4th respondent after detailed enquiry has issued certificate in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 and the caste certificates are valid. It is stated, the petitioner has to deposit Rs.500/- as security deposit before filing the petition as per Section 15(1) of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act. The petitioner has not complied with the said requirement. It is also contended that as per Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act the petition shall be signed by the petitioner and also verified. The petitioner has not signed the annexures and also :5: has not verified as required under Section 16(2) of the Act. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
5. The trial Court has framed as many as eight issues. Issue Nos.5 and 6 have been tried as preliminary issues. The Trial Court has answered both the issues in the affirmative and consequently has dismissed the election petition as not maintainable under Sections 15(1) and 16(2) of the Act.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Trial Court should have given an opportunity to cure the defects. Instead of that, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition itself, which is not correct. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 LAWS (SC) 2-90.
7. As against this, the learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the election petition suffer from :6: defects. The requirement of Section 15(1) and 16(2) of the Panchayath Raj Act is mandatory. The petitioner has not cured the defect at appropriate stage. Therefore, the trial Court has dismissed the election petition as not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
8. The learned AGA appearing for the 4th respondent supported the impugned order.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
10. The point that arises for my determination is; Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
11. It is relevant to note, E.P.No.1/2010 has been filed by the petitioner for declaration that the result of the 1st respondent as elected member to Hudem Grama Panchayath under Group-III-B is null and void and to declare the petitioner as the elected member from the 4th ward of Thayakanahalli for the Hudem Grama Panchayath. The :7: respondents have filed their written statement. A specific plea has been raised stating that the election petition suffers from serious defects as the petitioner has not deposited Rs.500/- as security deposit as required under Section 15(1) of the Act and the petition and the annexures are not verified as required under Section 16(2) of the Act. The Trial Court has framed issue Nos.5 and 6 regarding non-compliance of Section 15(1) and Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act and has answered both the issues in the affirmative.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not deposited Rs.500/- as required under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act. Similarly, the petitioner has produced 15 annexures along with the petition. They have not been signed or attested as required under Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act. The requirement of sections 15(1) and 16(2) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act is mandatory. It is not complied with. The petitioner has not cured the defect at appropriate stage. Therefore, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition. The decision relied upon :8: by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case, for the reason, the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of sections 15(1) and 16(2) of the Act at appropriate stage. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
13. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. IA.1/12 and IA.1/14 does not survive for consideration and accordingly they are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sub/