Karnataka High Court
Smt. Susheela vs The Returning Officer on 10 April, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14676
WP No. 2083 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2083 OF 2023 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUSHEELA
W/O B C KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINDIGERE POST,
LAKYA HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577168.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE RETURNING OFFICER
BELAVADI GRAMA PANCHAYATHI,
ELECTIION OFFICER ATTACHED TO
Digitally TAHSILDAR OFFICER,
signed by
ANAND N CHIKKAMAGALURU-577168.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE TALUK ELECTION OFFICER
KARNATAKA
TAHSILDAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU -577168.
3. SMT RENUKA
W/O LAKKA BOVI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINDIGERE POST,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14676
WP No. 2083 of 2023
LAKYA HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577168.
4. SHASHI @ DHANKUMAR
S/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINDIGERE POST,
LAKYA HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577168.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED
14.11.2022 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.07 OF 2021 ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM CHIKKAMAGALURU AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE
ELECTION PETITION IN ELECTION PETITION NO.07 OF
2021 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR
CIIVL JUDGE AND CJM CHIKKAMAGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14676
WP No. 2083 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner, who has contested the election held on 29.03.2021 to Belavadi Grama Panchayat, is unsuccessful both in the elections and in the subsequent election petition filed under Section 15 of the Grama Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for short, 'the Act']. The petitioner's petition under Section 15 of the Act in E.P.No.7/2021 is rejected by the Election Court by the impugned order dated 14.11.2022. The petitioner has lost the election by a single vote inasmuch as the third respondent has secured 298 votes as against the petitioner's 297 votes.
2. The Election Court has refused to interfere with the election petition because the petitioner's husband, who was present at the time of counting on 31.03.2021, did not apply in writing for recounting before the Returning Officer completed and signed the Result Sheet in Form No.91, and the application for recounting is filed on 01.04.2021. These two findings viz., that the petitioner's husband was -4- NC: 2024:KHC:14676 WP No. 2083 of 2023 present as her representative at the time of counting and that the application for recounting is filed not on the day of counting [31.03.2021] but the application is filed on the next day [01.04.2021] are not disputed.
3. The petitioner's grievance as against the Election Court's impugned order dated 14.11.2022 must necessarily be considered in the light of these admitted facts and the provisions of Rule 71 of the Grama Panchayat Raj [Conduct of Election] Rules, 1993 [for short, 'the Rules']. The provisions of this Rule read as under:
71.Recount of votes :-
(1) After the completion of the counting, the Returning Officer shall record in the result sheet in Form 31 the total number of votes polled by each candidate and announce the same.
(2) After such announcement has been made, a candidate or in his absence his Election Agent or any of his Counting Agents may apply in writing to the Returning Officer to recount the votes either wholly or in part stating the grounds on which he demands such recount.-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:14676 WP No. 2083 of 2023 (3) On such an application being made the Returning Officer shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject it in toto if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. (4) Every decision of the Returning Officer under sub-rule (3) shall be in writing and contain the reasons therefor.
(5) If the Returning Officer decides under sub-
rule (3) to allow a recount of the votes either wholly or in part he shall,
(a) do the recounting in accordance with the rules applicable for counting;
(b) amend the result sheet in Form 31 to the extent necessary after such recount; and
(c) announce the amendments so made by him.
(6) After the total number of votes polled by each candidate has been announced under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (5), the Returning Officer shall complete and sign the result sheet in Form 31 and no application for recount shall be entertained thereafter:
Provided that no step under this sub-rule shall be taken on the completion of counting until the candidate and Election Agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by sub-rule (2).-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:14676 WP No. 2083 of 2023
4. The Returning Officer, as is contemplated under Sub-Rule [1] of Rule 71 of the Rules, after completion of the counting, must record the total number of votes owned by each of the candidates in From No.31 and announce the same and after the announcements are made, the Returning Officer must sign the result sheet and once the result sheet is signed, no application for recounting can be entertained. The exception to this is if an application for recounting is filed in writing by a candidate/s or by an Election Agency or by the counting agency immediately after the announcement is made once the total number of votes are recorded in the result sheet. If the application is filed as aforesaid, the Returning Officer must decide on the application by a reasoned order in writing.
5. It is also seen that the proviso to sub-Rule [6] of Rule 71 of the Rules stipulates that the Returning Officer shall not complete and sign the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:14676 WP No. 2083 of 2023 result sheet until the candidates/Election Agency have been given reasonable opportunity to exercise their right of confirmation under sub-Rule [2] with a right to file an application for recounting. The Election Court has examined the petitioner's complaint about the result being announced without recounting in the light of these statutory provisions, and the Election Court has not found any reason to interfere with the results because the petitioner in her cross examination is not even certain about the date of application or the reasons as to why her agent could not file the application immediately after the results are announced. In the circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to opine that there is any reason for interference.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner proposes to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandeshwar Saw v. Brij -8- NC: 2024:KHC:14676 WP No. 2083 of 2023 Bhushan Prasad & Ors reported in 2020 (12) SCC
70. On perusal of this judgment, this Court must opine that there cannot be no dispute about the proposition that if the circumstances are justified, the election Court could order for recounting of votes. However, in the present circumstances, for the reasons as aforesaid, this Court must opine that the Election Court has rightly rejected the petitioner's application because a democratic mandate, howsoever thin, cannot be subject matter of speculative litigation.
Hence, the petition stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE SA ct:sr