Karnataka High Court
Smt Bhavyashree vs Smt M C Parvathamma on 6 December, 2022
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
WP No. 20981 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 20981 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT BHAVYASHREE
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDENT OF CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT M C PARVATHAMMA
W/O A LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDENT OF MEDIHALLI KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561202.
2. SRIRAMAPPA
S/O DODDANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
3. SMT. THADAMMA
W/O SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
4. SMT. RANGAMMA
W/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF R HOSAKOTE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
-2-
WP No. 20981 of 2022
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.
5. SMT. NETRAVATHI
W/O NARESH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
6. SMT. T SANJEEVAMMA
W/O LATE SATYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
7. MANJUNATHA
S/O CHENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
8. MAHESHA
S/O SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
9. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O PEDDAVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
10. SUBBARAYAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDENTS NO.5 TO 10 ARE
OF KANIVENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGAD TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561202.
11. RAMACHANDRA NAIK
S/O SEVYA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
12. SMT. MUTTAKKA
W/O RAMANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDENTS NO.11 & 12 ARE
OF IVARALAHALLI KASABA HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.
-3-
WP No. 20981 of 2022
13. M SHIVANNA
S/O MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
14. SMT. ESHWARAMMA
W/O UGRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDENTS NO.13 & 14 ARE
R/OF CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.
15. RAJAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
16. R N DASA NAYAKA
S/O T NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
17. SMT. B R RADHAMMA
W/O NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDENTS NO.15 TO 17 ARE
R/OF RAJAVANTHI
KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.
18. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATRAJ AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
19. RETURNING OFFICER CUM
ELECTION OFFICER
FOR ELECTION TO PRESIDENT AND
VICE PRESIDENT ELECTION OF
-4-
WP No. 20981 of 2022
RAJAVANTHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.
20. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
21. ELECTION COMMISSION OF KARNATAKA
REP BY CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU - 560052.
22. RAJAVANTHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT
RAJAVANTHI KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
REP. BY PANCHAYATH
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - 561 202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R18 TO R20;
V/O DATED:21.10.2022 NOTICE TO R2 TO R17 ARE D/W
R2 SERVED, SMT. YASHWINI RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR
VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R21)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 30.09.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PAVAGADA IN ELECTION PETITION
NO.2/2021 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-J BY DECLARING THE SAID ORDER AS ILLEGAL
AND UNSUSTAINABLE PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO FUNCTION
AND DISCHARGE DUTIES AS THE ADYAKSHA OF RAJAVANTHI
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TILL THE COMPLETION OF THE TENURE
-5-
WP No. 20981 of 2022
OF 30 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ASSUMING THE OFFICE OF
ADHYAKSHA OF THE R22 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2021 passed in Election Petition No.2/2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pavagada (hereinafter referred to as the 'Election Tribunal') in and by which, the Election Tribunal while partly allowing said Election Petition held the election of the petitioner herein to the post of President of Rajavanthi Gram Panchayat to be null and void.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.22-Panchayat consists of 18 directly elected members from various constituencies. In the General Election that was held on 22.12.2020 the respondent No.20- Deputy Commissioner had issued a notification reserving post of Adhyaksha to the Scheduled -6- WP No. 20981 of 2022 Tribe Lady and post of Upa Adhyaksha to the General category. The respondent No. 19 was appointed and designated as a Returning Officer to hold the elections to the post of Adhyaksha and Upa Adhyaksha of the respondent No.22-Gram panchayat. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.19 issued a calendar of events fixing election to the post of Adhyaksha and Upa Adhyaksha of the respondent No.22- Gram Panchayat for the first term of 30 months to be held on 05.02.2021.
2.1. That on 05.02.2021, the respondent No.19 commenced the process of election at 10.00 a.m. as per the schedule. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 were the candidates for the post of Adhyaksha and respondent Nos. 2 to candidates 17 were candidates for the post of Upa Adhyaksha. The actual process of election was commenced at 1.30 p.m. for the election of Adhyaksha the entire process of election was videographed. After the respondent No. 16 namely, Sri.Dasa Nayaka casted his vote, some of the members raised objections stating that -7- WP No. 20981 of 2022 he had exhibited his ballot paper after casting his votes, violating the secrecy of voting and thereby obstructed election process, resulting in abrupt stopping of election. That on consultation with Tahsildar and office of the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.19- the Returning Officer postponed the election to 08.02.2021 and the said postponement was preceded by a meeting of all the members and passing resolution to that effect.
2.2. That on 08.02.2021 as decided in the presence of all the members, the videography dated 05.02.2021 was viewed and found that the respondent No.16, namely, Dasa Nayak had not shown/displayed his voted ballot paper. Therefore, it was unanimously decided to proceed with the election from the stage it was stopped on the previous date. That after completion of process of voting, it was found that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 had secured 9 votes each and therefore, a lottery system was adopted to decide the person who was to be declared elected. In the said lottery system, the name of the -8- WP No. 20981 of 2022 petitioner was picked and she was thus declared elected as Adhyaksha. Similar procedure was adopted for electing the post of Upa Adhyaksha as the two of the candidates had secured equal number of votes.
3. Aggrieved by the result of the petitioner having been declared as Adhyakasha, respondent No.1 filed the above election petition in E.P.No.2/2021 before the Election Tribunal seeking declaration of the result to be void and consequently declare herself to have been elected to the post of Adhyakasha. Petitioner and the respondent no.2 contested the petition by filing objections. The respondent No.19-Returning Officer has also filed statement of objections denying the petition averments.
4. Considering the pleadings, the Election Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration;
"1.Whether the petitioner proves that there are procedural irregularities in electing the respondent No.5 and 6 as president and Vice-president of Rajavanthi Grama Panchayath Pavagada Taluk?-9- WP No. 20981 of 2022
2. Whether the petitioner proves that the 2nd respondent has played fraud in electing the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are President and Vice-President of Rajavanthi Grama Panchayath Pavagada Taluk by passing the false meeting proceedings dated 08.02.2021?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that the election process of President and Vice- president of Rajavanthi Grama Panchayath Pavagada dated 08.02.2021 is void?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled the relief as sought for?
5. What order or decree?".
5. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner as PW 1 and CW.1 and exhibited 4 documents and marked as Ex.P1 to P4. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent No.2 as R.W.1 and respondent No.5 as R.W.2 and no documents are marked.
6. The Election Tribunal by its impugned order dated 30.09.2022 answering Issue Nos.1, 3, 4 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative partly allowed the election petition declaring the election of the petitioner to the post of Adhyaksha to be void. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
- 10 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022
7. Sri. A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that the Election Tribunal grossly erred in allowing the petition without there being any legal evidence on record to prove the invalidation of the vote casted by the respondent No.16-Dasa Nayaka. He further submits that there was no irregularity or illegality in postponement of election from 05.02.2021 to 08.02.2021. He submits that the reasoning given by the Election Tribunal, more specifically, with regard to the circumstances appearing in the videograph and opinion of the Election Tribunal that the videograph had been manipulated is erroneous and baseless. Thus, he submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Sri. Manjunath B.R, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 justifying the order passed by the Election Tribunal submits that it is nobody's case that the election was not disturbed or postponed. He further submits that the entire process of election both on
- 11 -
WP No. 20981 of 202205.02.2021 and 08.02.2021 were videographed. He submits that the order passed by the Election Tribunal was based on the aforesaid circumstances which have been proved by leading cogent evidence establishing the fact that the respondent No.16-Dasa Nayaka had indeed showed/displayed the ballot paper committing the breach of secrecy to be maintained by a voter and the tribunal having taken note of this fact has come to just conclusion warranting no interference.
8.1. Learned counsel the respondent No.1 further relies upon Rule 8 and 9 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1995 (for short Rules) in support of his submission.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
10. The questions that arise in this petition are what is the basis to declare a ballot paper to be invalid?
- 12 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022and whether the Returning Officer is authorized to postpone the election and re-fix to the date of his choice?.
11. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it is appropriate to refer to the Rule 8, sub -rule 8(9), (10)(a) (b), Rules 9 and 10.
8. GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »AvÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ :- (1) 7£Éà ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ, AiÀiÁgÉà C¨såÀ yðAiÀÄÄ gÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ °TvÀ £ÉÆÃnù£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÁUÀÆ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjUÉ CzÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸À°è¹ vÀ£ßÀ GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »AvÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÀÄzÀÄ.
(2) D¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ RÄzÁÝVAiÀiÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ D¨såÀ yð¬ÄAzÀ F ¸ÀA¨sÀðzÀ°è °TvÀªÁV ¥Áæ¢üPÀÈvÀ£ÁzÀ ¸ÀÆZÀPÀ£À ªÀÄÆ®zÀªÁUÀ° £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ.
(3) AiÀiÁgÉà ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ (1)£Éà G¥À-¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÀ£ßÀ GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »AvÉUÉzÄÀ PÉƼÀÄîªÀ £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÄÀ ß ¤ÃrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÁUÉ »AvÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÄÀ ß gÀzÄÀ Ý¥Àr¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è.
(4) UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ »AvÉUÉzÄÀ PÉƼÀÄîªÀ £ÉÆÃnøÀ£À ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (2)£Éà G¥À-¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CzÀ£ÄÀ ß M¦à¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw£À §UÉÎ ªÀÄ£Àzm À ÁÖzÀ vÀgÄÀ ªÁAiÀÄ, vÀªÀÄä GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »AvÉUÉzÄÀ PÉƼÀÄîwÛgÄÀ ªÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß CAxÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁdjgÀĪÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ NzÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý. (5) »AvÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀĪÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ, M§â£Éà M§â C¨såÀ yðAiÀÄ £ÁªÀÄ¥Àvæª À ÅÀ PÀæªÄÀ §zÀÞªÁVzÀÝgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£ÀÄ ¤¢ðµÀÖ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ®zÉƼÀUÁV vÀ£ßÀ GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »AzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¢zÀÝgÉ, UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà CAxÀ C¨såÀ yðAiÀÄÄ CzsåÀ PÀë CxÀªÁ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÁð£ÀĸÁgÀªÁV G¥ÁzsåÀ PÀë£ÁV DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁVzÁÝ£ÉA§ÄzÁV WÉÆö¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
- 13 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022(6) £ÁªÀÄ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀæªÄÀ §zÀÞªÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÄÀ ä GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »AvÉUÉzÄÀ PÉƼÀîzÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå M§âjVAvÀ ºÉaÑUÉ EzÀÝgÉ, UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ G¥À§A¢ü¹gÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjAiÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
(7) UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è §¼À¹zÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÉnÖUÉAiÀÄ «£Áå¸ÀªÀ£Éßà ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀ ¥ÉnÖUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀ£ÄÀ ß D¨såÀ yðUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÄÀ ÄäRzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÉƺÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©ÃUÀ ºÁPÀvÀPÌÀ zÀÄÝ. (8) ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä EaѸÄÀ ªÀ ¥ÀæwAiÉƧ⠸ÀzÀ¸åÀ ¤UÉ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É IIgÀ°è£À ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀæªÀ£ÉÆßzÀV¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý. (CAxÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå£ÀÄ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ ¸À®PÀgÀuɬÄAzÀ¯Éà ªÀÄvÀ¥Àvæz À À°è UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý.] (9) ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ £ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀ¥n É ÖUÉAiÀĤßnÖgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£ÄÀ AiÀiÁjUÉ ªÀÄvÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä EaѸÄÀ vÁÛ£Æ É Ã CAxÀ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÁæ¸ï (X) ªÀiÁr ªÀÄvÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ PÁtzÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀ¥Àvæª À À£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄr¹, ¸À¨És £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è F GzÉÝñÀPÁÌVAiÉÄà EnÖgÄÀ ªÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÉnÖUÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁPÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvæPÀ ÌÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è CxÀªÁ DvÀ£À UÀÄgÀÄvÀ£ÄÀ ß w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà EvÀgÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è UÀÄgÀÄvÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è. ºÁUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ CxÀªÁ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ CxÀªÁ M§â C¨sÀåyðVAvÀ ºÉaÑUÉ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄAzÉ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄUÀ½zÀÝgÉ, CAxÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ C¹AzsÀĪÁUÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
(10) (J) ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ £ÀÄ, vÀ£ßÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥Àvæª
À À£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀÄ®¨sÀªÁV
G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀzÀAxÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è, D §UÉÎ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ªÀåªÀºÀj¹zÀÝgÉ CzÀ£ÄÀ ß UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjUÉ »AwgÀÄV¹zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAxÀ CeÁUÀgÆ À PÀvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ DvÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄ£ÀzÀmÁÖzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvæªÀ À£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉAiÀħºÀÄzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÁUÉ »AwgÀÄV¹zÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 'ºÁ¼ÁVzÉ'- gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý. (©) (J)RAqÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ gÀzÄÀ Ý¥Àr¹zÀ J¯Áè ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvæU À À¼À£ÄÀ ß MAzÀÄ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ¥ÁåPÉmï£À°è EqÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý.
11(J) ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀ£ÀÄ C£ÀPëÀgÀ¸ÜÀ £ÁVzÀÄÝ, CxÀªÁ PÀÄgÀÄqÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁæ¸ï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsåÀ ªÁUÀ¢zÀÝgÉ, UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀ£À EZÉÒUÀ£ÄÀ ¸ÁgÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀ¥Àvæz À À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄvÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý.
- 14 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022(©) F G¥À-¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ CrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ PÁAiÀÄð ¸ÁzsåÀ ªÁzÀµÄÀ Ö ªÀÄnÖUÉ gÀºÀ¸åÀ ªÀ£ÄÀ ß PÁ¥ÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
9. ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À JtÂPÉ -(1) ºÁdjgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä EaÒ¸ÀĪÀ J¯Áè ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÀÄ ªÀÄvÀzÁ£À ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ºÁdjgÀĪÀ J¯Áè ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ ÄäRzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀ¥n É ÖUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÉzÀÄ, CzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvæU À À¼À£ÄÀ ß ºÉÆgÀ vÉUÉzÄÀ Jt¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹AzsÄÀ ªÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀqÄÀ ªÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¹AzsÄÀ ªÁzÀªÅÀ UÀ½ªÀÄzÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃQ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ; C¹AzsÄÀ ªÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvæU À À¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É "wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ"
JA§ ¥ÀzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À®Ä EgÀĪÀ PÁgÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É »A§gÀºÀ §gÉAiÀÄvÀPÌÀ zÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹AzsÄÀ ªÁzÀ J¯Áè ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ PÀnÖ£À°è eÉÆÃr¹qÀvÀPÀÌzÄÀ Ý.
(2) UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ-
J) ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀ£À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀAxÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ CxÀªÁ §gÀºÀªÀÅ CzÀgÀ ªÉÄðzÀÝgÉ; CxÀªÁ (©) CzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹gÀ¢zÀÝgÉ; CxÀªÁ ¹) M§â C¨sÀåyðVAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À C¨såÀ yðUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÀÝgÉ; CxÀªÁ
r) CzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀZÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ, AiÀiÁªÀ C¨sÀåyðUÉ ªÀÄvÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ JA§ §UÉÎ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£ÀªÁUÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÉ; CxÀªÁ E) ªÀÄvÀ ¥ÀvÀæ SÉÆÃmÁ DVzÀÝgÉ;
CAxÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÌÀ j¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý:
¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ, ªÀÄvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¢ðµÀÖ C¨såÀ yðUÉ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÉA§ ¸ÀàµÀÖ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄvÀ ¥Àvæz À À ªÉÄÃ¯É D jÃw ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §AzÀ ªÀÄvÀ ¤ÃrPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ C¸ÀàµÀÖªÁVzÉ CxÀªÁ MAzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ ¨Áj UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JA§ PÁgÀtPÁÌV wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è.
(3) G¥À-¤AiÀĪÀÄ (2) gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvæªÀ À£ÄÀ ß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸ÀĪÀÅPÉÌ ªÀÄÄAZÉ, UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀæwAiÉƧâ C¨såÀ yðUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ CªÀPÁ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß CxÀªÁ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà EvÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀ£À PÉÊUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ.
(4) wgÀ¸ÀÌøvÀªÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀ¥Àvæª À À£ÄÀ ß ¹AzsÄÀ ªÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀªÉA§ÄzÁV JtÂPÉ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀ JtÂPÉ ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæwAiÉƧâ C¨såÀ yðUÉ zÉÆgÉvÀ
- 15 -WP No. 20981 of 2022
ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À MlÄÖ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ªÀgÀt ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è zÁR¯ÁäqÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀ£ÀÄß WÉÆö¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÄÀ Ý.
(5) CAxÀ WÉÆõÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀévÀB vÁ£ÁVAiÉÄà CxÀªÁ ªÀÄgÀÄJtÂPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ AiÀiÁgÉà C¨sÀåðyðAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄgÀÄJtÂPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ.
¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ, EzÀgÀ°è K£Éà M¼ÀUÉÆArzÀÝgÆ À , CªÉà ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß MAzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ ¨Áj ªÀÄgÀÄJtÂPÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀqÁØAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è.
(6) (5)£Éà G¥À-¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ°è ºÉýzÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄgÀÄJtÂPÉ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ, UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ CAxÀ ªÀÄgÀÄJtÂPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ±Àå«gÀĪÀµÖÀgÀ ªÀÄnÖUÉ (4)£Éà G¥À-¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ°è G¯ÉèÃT¹gÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÌÀ zÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£ÀÄ ºÁUÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß WÉÆö¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý. (7) UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ, ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À JtÂPÉ CxÀªÁ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÁð£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄgÀÄ JtÂPÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ, Cw ºÉaÑ£À ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ ¹AzsÀĪÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß UÀ½¹gÀĪÀ C¨såÀ yðAiÀÄÄ «zÀåPÀÛªÁV DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁVzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ WÉÆö¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý. (8) ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À JtÂPÉ ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ AiÀiÁgÉà E§âgÀÄ CxÀªÁ ºÉZÀÄÑ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀªiÀ Á£À ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ zÉÆgÉwgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §AzÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸ÉÃj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ D C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À°è AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÉƧâgÀÄ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀgÁVzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ WÉÆövÀ£ÁUÀ®Ä ºÀPÀÄ̼ÀîªÀ£ÁzÀgÉ DUÀ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà vÁ£ÀÄ ¤zsÀðj¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è aÃn JvÀÄÛªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ D C¨såÀ yðUÀ¼À £ÀqÀÄªÉ DAiÉÄÌAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wêÀiÁð¤¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV aÃnAiÀÄÄ §gÀĪÀÅzÉÆà CªÀ£ÄÀ MAzÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀÄvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÉ ºÉÃUÉÆà ºÁUÉ JA§AvÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÄÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÀ ªÀÄvÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀ C¨såÀ yðAiÀÄÄ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ£ÁVzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ DvÀ£ÄÀ WÉÆö¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý. (9) UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ, D vÀgÄÀ ªÁAiÀÄ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹zÀÝ¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀæªiÀ ÁtÂÃPÀj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ."
10. ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ:- UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ°è ºÁdjzÀÝ J¯Áè ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÄÀ UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß M¼ÀUÆ É AqÀAvÉ £ÀqɸÀ¯ÁzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼À zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÆ É AqÀÄ §gÀĪÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ½UÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁgÉà ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÀÄ, CzÀ£ÄÀ ß vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä zÉÆgÉAiÀÄĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÌÀ zÄÀ Ý.
- 16 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022«ªÀgÀuÉ: F ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV "ºÁdjgÀĪÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÀ" JAzÀgÉ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁdjgÀĪÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸åÀ gÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzsåÀ PÀë CxÀªÁ ¸ÀAzsÀ¨sÁð£ÀĸÁgÀ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀëgÀ ¥ÀzÀPÁÌV G¥À-¤AiÀĪÀÄ (7) CxÀªÁ (8) gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå£ÀÄ «zÀÄåPÀÛªÁV ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ£ÁVzÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ WÉÆö¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä CxÀªÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 8gÀ G¥À-¤AiÀĪÀÄ (4)gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ GªÉÄÃzÀĪÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »AzÀPÌÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ vÀgÄÀ ªÁAiÀÄ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀzÀ ªÉÆzÀ®AiÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÄÀ UÀ¼ÄÀ zÁR¯ÁVzÀݪÉÇà D ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ."
12. The aforesaid Rules provide for manner and method of filing the nomination papers, scrutiny of the nomination papers and withdrawal of nomination papers. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 8 specifically refers to the manner of casting the vote and the manner of holding the votes as invalid.
13. Relying upon the aforesaid provisions, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that Rule 8(9) read in conjunction with Rule 9 (2) (a) clinches the whole issue involved in the matter in which the respondent No.16-Dasa Nayak having displayed his ballot paper has committed breach and therefore the reasoning arrived at by the Election Tribunal based on the videograph that there were breach of secrecy resulting in invalidation of
- 17 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022the vote is justified and that the same does not warrant any interference.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand refuting the said contention submits that Rule 8(9) and Rule 8(10) has to be read separately and Rule 9 and Rule 9(2)(a) has to be read separately and the same operates in different domain. He submits that a plain reading of the sub-rule 9 of Rule 8 which only provide for method, manner and circumstances of ballot paper to be held invalid. Rule 9 deals with method of counting of votes. That once a ballot paper is held to be invalid the same would not fall for consideration for counting under Rule 9. Thus, the rejected ballot paper under Rule 9 can only be considered in the circumstances provided under sub-rule (2) Rule 9 and in the said sub-rule there is no provision to reject the ballot paper for the reasons of same having been displayed. In the absence of any specific provision in the rule in this regard, the same cannot be read into the facts of the present case. He further submits that there is no evidence to prove that the respondent
- 18 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022No.16 -Dasa Nayaka had indeed displayed the ballot paper regarding the vote casted by him.
15. On perusal of the material on record and from the aforesaid provisions, though it appears that there were some commotions and disturbances during the process of election on 05.02.2021 and which resulted in stopping of the election and resumption of the same on 08.02.2021, the question would arise whether the same was on account of so called display/showing of the ballot paper by the respondent No.16. The Election Tribunal relying upon the DVD/CD marked as Ex.C2 and noticing missing of certain portion of the video has to come to the conclusion that there appears to be editing of the videography and has thus concluded that there was a display of ballot paper by the respondent No.16-Dasanayaka breaching the secrecy of voting. The aforesaid reasoning of the Election Tribunal cannot be countenanced for two reasons. The very production of DVD/CD marked as Ex.C2-videography which is an electronic evidence is not supported by a declaration as required under law. Admittedly, no primary
- 19 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022evidence in the nature of hardware or software of the said DVD/CD is produced. No witness who was in possession and custody of the said hardware and software has been examined. The secondary evidence of the same can be produced only on production of certificate required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Apex Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and ors., reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908, has held as under;
"We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly "clarified" in Shafhi Mohammed (supra).
Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. Indeed, the hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426, which has been followed in a number of the judgments of this Court, can also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose".
- 20 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022
16. The above law is well settled that there cannot be laxity or concession in accepting the electronic evidence other than the manner known to law as the very apprehension of editing and manipulating has to be ruled out, more particularly, in the cases of severe consequences. The Election Tribunal not having taken note of this requirement of law in the considered opinion of this Court has grossly erred in relying upon said piece of evidence to come to the conclusion that the respondent No.16 has displayed the ballot paper.
17. Further, in the absence of any provision providing either in Rule 8 or Rule 9 to invalidate the vote of that nature and in the absence of legally admissible evidence, the reasoning of the Election Tribunal cannot be countenanced.
18. As regards the postponement of election, Ms. Yashwini Raj, leaned counsel appearing for Ms. Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.21 submits that there is no provision under the Gram
- 21 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022Panchayat Rules enabling or prohibiting a Returning Officer from postponing the election. She, however, refers to the General Condition No.30 which provides for the election of the Gram Panchayat, wherein the postponement of the election is provided. However, there is no provision either in the General Conditions for election or in the election for the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat, providing for application of condition No.30 postponing the election. In the absence of any specific provision providing or prohibiting the postponement of election, the manner and method adopted by the respondent No.19 cannot be found fault with. Even the Election Tribunal while answering the issue nos. 2 and 3 has not found any fault with the postponement of election by the respondent No.19. On the other hand, the Election Tribunal has affirmed the manner and method adopted by him, namely consulting the officer concerned and calling for the meeting of the members before resuming the election on 08.02.2021.
- 22 -
WP No. 20981 of 2022
19. In that view of the matter, the following;
Order
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pavagada at Annexure-J is quashed.
(iii) However, it may be necessary to observe that situation and eventuality of the nature involved in this case can be effectively addressed by appropriate rules and provisions made thereof. The State Government may take note of this situation to meet such eventuality more particularly with regard to the power and authority of the Returning Officer to conduct, postpone and resume the elections in a specified manner.
Sd/-
JUDGE RU