Karnataka High Court
Panduranga Ghavg vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 23 November, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
WA No. 200125 of 2021
C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO.200125 OF 2021 (CS/EL/M)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.200059 OF 2022 (CS-EL/M)
W.A.NO.200125 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
1. DR. MADHUSUDHAN KARIGANOOR
SON OF K ESHWARAPPA
AGED 51 YEARS
RESIDING NEAR AMRUTHESHWARA TEMPLE
VIJAYAVITTALA NAGAR
SIRUGUPPA, BELLARY - 583 121
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR 2. DR. SIDIGINAMOLA MENASINA SOMNATH
Location: High Court
Of Karnataka SON OF LATE. S.M.VIRUPAKSHA
AGED 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT B.S.COMPUND
MOKA ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR, AMARPURA
BELLARY - 583 103.
3. DR. YOGANANDA REDDY Y.C.
SON OF CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY H.
AGED 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT PRUTHVI CHILDREN HOSPITAL
Y.NAGESH SHASTRI NAGAR
BELLARY - 583 103.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
WA No. 200125 of 2021
C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
4. DR. HONNEGOWDA
SON OF LATE. JAVAREGOWDA
AGED 67 YEARS
SHARADA NURSING HOME
SHANKARA MUTT ROAD
K.R.PURAM, HASSAN 573 201.
5. DR. RAVINDRA R.
SON OF M. RAMAIAH
AGED 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT 'SUGUNA' # 652
12TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.
6. DR. RAVI K.
SON OF S. KRISHNAPPA
AGED 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT B-009
MITTAL PANORAMA
APARTMENTS, K.C.NAGAR
MYSORE - 570 011.
7. DR. PAVANKUMAR NINGANAGOUDA PATIL
SON OF NINGANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OFFICE AT D.N.B.PATIL HOSPITAL
MULGUND NAKA, GADAG - 582 103.
8. DR. SUDHIR R. JAMBAGI
SON OF REVANASIDDAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHRAVYA, 1ST MAIN
2ND CROSS, NARAYANAPURA
DHARAWAD - 580 008.
9. DR. RAVI N.
SON OF NINGAPPA N.S.
AGED 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.612
5TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS
M.C.LAYOUT, VIJANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
WA No. 200125 of 2021
C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
10. DR. SHARANBASAPPA S.KARBHARI
SON OF SIDRAMAPPAKARBHARI
AGED 52 YEARS
C/O. KARBHARI HOSPITAL
NEAR TOYOTA SHOWROOM
SWASTIKNAGAR, RING ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 105.
11. DR. SHANTESH PATIL
SON OF PATIL A.M.
AGED 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT "SHIVASHREE"
H.NO.1-1496/3
GODUTAI NAGAR
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
12. DR. VEERABHADRAIAH T.A.
SON OF LATE CHIKKAADAVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT "MUNAL" 7TH CROSS
VIDYANAGAR, TUMKUR 572 103.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DORE RAJ. B.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(MEDICAL EDUCATION)
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY.
2. RETURNING OFFICER
ELECTION TO THE KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL
AND THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES
BENGALURU DIVISION, SAHAKAR SOUDHA
8TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
WA No. 200125 of 2021
C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
3. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL
NO.16/2, 2ND FLOOR
MILLER TANK BED AREA
VASANT NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 052.
4. DR. GACHINAMANI NAGANATHA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
OCCUPATION MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
RESIDING AT DARGA ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLAHARAO, AAG AND
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1;
SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI BASAVARAJ S.SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI ANANT S. JAHAGIRDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.211065 OF 2020 (CS-
EL/M) AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND
CICUSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE.
W.A.NO.200059 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
PANDURANGA GHAVG
THE RETURNING OFFICER
FOR ELECTION TO THE KARNATAKA
MEDICAL COUNCIL AND THE JOINT
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
WA No. 200125 of 2021
C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(MEDICAL EDUCATION)
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY
2. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL
NO.16/2, 2ND FLOOR
MILLER TANK BED AREA
VASANT NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 052.
3. DR. GACHINAMANI NAGANATHA
AGED BOUT 70 YEARS
OCCUPATION MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
RESIDING AT DARGA ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
4. DR. MADHUSUDHAN KARIGANOOR
SON OF K. ESHWARAPPA
AGED 51 YEARS
RESIDING NEAR AMRUTHESHWARA TEMPLE
VIJAYA VITTALA NAGAR
SIRUGUPPA, BELLARY - 583 121
5. DR. SIDIGINAMOLA MENASINA SOMNATH
SON OF LATE. S.M.VIRUPAKSHA
AGED 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT B.S. COMPUND
MOKA ROAD
GANDHINAGAR, AMARPURA
BELLARY - 583 103.
6 DR. YOGANANDA REDDY Y.C.
SON OF CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY H.
AGED 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT PRUTHVI CHILDREN HOSPITAL
Y.NAGESH SHASTRI NAGAR
BELLARY - 583 103
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
WA No. 200125 of 2021
C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
7. DR. HONNEGOWDA
SON OF LATE. JAVAREGOWDA
AGED 67 YEARS
SHARADA NURSING HOME
SHANKARA MUTT ROAD
K.R.PURAM
HASSAN 573 201
8. DR. RAVINDRA R.
SON OF M.RAMAIAH
AGED 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT 'SUGUNA' # 652
12TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.
9. DR. RAVI K.
SON OF S. KRISHNAPPA
AGED 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT B-009
MITTAL PANORAMA
APARTMENTS, K.C.NAGAR
MYSORE - 570 011.
10. DR. PAVANKUMAR NINGANAGOUDA PATIL
SON OF NINGANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OFFICE AT D.N.B.PATIL HOSPITAL
MULGUND NAKA
GADAG - 582 103.
11. DR. SUDHIR R. JAMBAGI
SON OF REVANASIDDAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHRAVYA, 1ST MAIN
2ND CROSS, NARAYANAPURA
DHARAWAD - 580 008.
12. DR. RAVI N.
SON OF NINGAPPA N.S.
AGED 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.612
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
WA No. 200125 of 2021
C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
5TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS
M.C.LAYOUT, VIJANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.
13. DR. SHARANBASAPPA S. KARBHARI
SON OF SIDRAMAPPA KARBHARI
AGED 52 YEARS
C/O. KARBHARI HOSPITAL
NEAR TOYOTA SHOWROOM
SWASTIKNAGAR, RING ROAD
GULBARGA - 585 105.
14. DR. SHANTESH PATIL
SON OF PATIL A.M.
AGED 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT "SHIVASHREE"
H.NO.1-1496/3,
GODUTAI NAGAR,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
15. DR. VEERABHADRAIAH T.A.
SON OF LATE CHIKKAADAVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT "MUNAL" 7TH CROSS
VIDYANAGAR, TUMKUR 572 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1;
SRI BASAVARAJ R.SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI ANANT S. JAHAGIRDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R15)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN
W.P.NO.211065/2020 DATED 07.06.2021 AND PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
R.DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
WA No. 200125 of 2021
C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
JUDGMENT
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
These writ appeals arise out of elections to the Karnataka Medical Council (hereinafter referred to as 'KMC', for short). Earlier, a writ petition in W.P.Nos.40880-40882/2017 is said to have been filed seeking a mandamus to hold elections as per the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.12.2018 directing the then Returning Officer to conduct elections in a manner indicated therein. It is also not in dispute that there has been some confusion regarding the renewal of membership of the registered medical practitioners and there were some allegations against the respondent - KMC that renewal fee was being collected contrary to the provisions of law. It is also not disputed that subsequently an amendment was brought to the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act', for short). Section 19 of the Act was amended by the -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 Amendment Act, 2017 making provision for renewal of the registration once in five years by paying prescribed fees to the Medical Council. The amended provision would also provide for a condition that such renewal would be permissible only if evidence to the effect that the applicant has participated or attended a minimum of thirty credit hours of continued Medical Education Programme. Sub- section (2) of Section 19 provides that the medical practitioner who fails to renew his registration under sub- section(1) would cease to be a registered practitioner under sub-section(1) of Section 13 and the Registrar shall remove the name of such practitioner from the Register maintained under Section 12 of the Act. It is also not disputed that the amended provision also was a subject matter of writ petition in W.P.No.40580/2017 filed at the hands of the Indian Medical Association and others. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that various directions have been given by this Court in the said writ petition which is still pending consideration.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
2. The 4th respondent herein filed the instant writ petition in W.P.No.211065/2020 seeking the following:
" PRAYER THEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, more so in the nature of mandamus and grant the following reliefs:
(i) Direct the respondent No.2 herein not to act upon the list of members for the purpose of election to the members of Karnataka Medical Council prepared by him, the copy of extract of portion of which is at Annexure-B;
(ii) Direct the respondent No.2 herein to prepare a list in conformity with the list published by the Registrar of Karnataka Medical Council under Section 26 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, and to permit only such persons whose registration is renewed as per law and whose names are enlisted in the list published under Section 26 of the Karnataka Medical
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 Council Registration Act, 1961, for the purpose of contesting and voting in the election to the post of members of Karnataka Medical Council in the election to be held on 23.01.2020, the copy of extract of portion of which list is at Annexure-A;
(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
3. Initially, an interim order dated 17.01.2020 was passed by the learned Single Judge prima facie finding that the respondent - Returning Officer sought to venture into usurping the powers of the KMC by preparing a separate list of voters for the purposes of holding the elections. However, the very same learned Single Judge who had passed the order, subsequently passed another interim order dated 20.01.2020 while noticing the powers conferred on the Returning Officer in terms of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Registration (Amendment) Rules,
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 2018. It was noticed that the amended provisions clearly empowered the Returning Officer to hear any grievance of the members who are omitted from the preliminary list. Having noticed the said provisions, the learned Single Judge held that respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein were eligible to participate in the elections to be held on 23.01.2020. Therefore, the Returning Officer was directed to permit all those members whose claims are independently examined and separate orders are passed strictly in terms of Rule 4(3) of the Amended Rules, 2018 enabling their names to be entered in the revised list pursuant to the separate order.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants who claim to be the candidates who were elected in the elections held on 23.01.2020, would submit that when such an order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the prayer made in the writ petition would become infructuous or at best the writ petitioner should have challenged the said order, since the said order would clearly go against the writ petitioner
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 who sought that the elections should be held in terms of the list prepared and published by the KMC under Section 26 of the Act. However, it is submitted that despite the elections being permitted to be held even in terms of the order dated 20.01.2020, the writ petition was kept pending without any specific order. Be that as it may, it is submitted that there was no scope for the learned Single Judge to further go into the matter, having regard to the prayers made in the writ petition. However, while pointing out to the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has proceeded beyond the scope of the writ petition and has passed scathing remarks against the Returning Officer and therefore the Returning Officer has also filed one more writ appeal which is connected to this writ appeal and is heard.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appears for the Returning Officer.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
6. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that despite the elections being held and the said factum having been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and it was prayed at the hands of the respondents therein that the writ petition may be disposed of, nevertheless, the matter was kept pending and the application filed at the hands of the writ petitioner to stay the declared results were entertained by the learned Single Judge and consequently, though the appellants herein were declared as elected, they were not permitted to take charge as the members of the Council. Therefore, the appellants herein filed an application before the learned Single Judge seeking to vacate the orders of stay. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge directed that the said application will be considered along with the main matter. Learned counsel would further submit that though it was vehemently contended before the learned Single Judge that having regard to the prayers made in the writ petition and coupled with the fact that election were held, nothing further survives for consideration, nevertheless,
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 the learned Single Judge framed the said contention as an issue, "as to whether the elections being over, the petitioner has to raise an election dispute under the Rules thereof?".
7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing for the Returning Officer would submit that there are any number of decisions of this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which laid down the law unequivocally that once calendar of events are announced, no Court can pass any order that would cause interference in the course of the elections. Reference is made to the decision in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami & Ors. Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors. reported in AIR 1952 SC 64. Further, it is submitted that in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardhan Swami (Moingiri Maharaja) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadaka and anr. Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 3982, it has been held that preparation of electoral roll being an intermediate stage in the process of election and
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 the election process having been set in motion, it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It was therefore held that since the election was already held and once the results of election were declared, it would be open for the aggrieved person to challenge the election of the Return Candidate, if aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the Election Tribunal.
8. Learned Senior Counsel would also point out to a recent decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of N.H. Sripad Rao Vs. The State of Karnataka Department of Co-operative & Ors. in W.A.No.420/2022 and connected matters dated 29.07.2022, wherein the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge insofar as the directions given to re-hold the elections, while stating that such a direction could not have been given by the learned Single
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 Judge since the results of the election could only be challenged by filing a duly constituted election petition.
9. Having noticed that the thrust of the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar and the learned counsel for the appellants is directed towards the scope of the writ petition and the fact that the learned Single Judge is said to have gone beyond the scope of the writ petition, learned Senior Counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, appearing for the contesting respondent seeks to submit that there are many decisions of this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the writ Court has the power to mould the relief, having regard to the subsequent events which may be relevant for consideration of the matter. In that regard, the learned Senior Counsel seeks to place reliance on the following decisions:
i) Ram Kumar Barnwal Vs. Ram Lakhan (Dead) reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3250,
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
ii) B.R. Ramabhadriah Vs. Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department, A.P. and others reported in AIR 1981 SC 1653, and etc.
10. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing for the Returning Officer who is also an appellant in the connected writ appeal, learned counsel Sri Dore Raj appearing for the appellants, learned Senior Counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande appearing for the contesting 4th respondent, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent - State, learned counsel Sri Basavaraj S. Sappannavar appearing for the Karnataka Medical Council and on perusing the appeal papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that having regard, prayers made in the writ petition, it is clear that the learned Single Judge could not have quashed the final voters' list published on 10.01.2020 by the Returning Officer or declared the results of the election as quashed. Having regard to the settled position of law, only an Election Tribunal is
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 permitted to declare the election or results of the election as void or illegal and consequently set aside the same.
11. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned counsels for the appellants as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the Returning Officer would aptly summarize the essence of such judgments which clearly hold that the legality of the process of election and the declaration of results can be gone into only by an Election Tribunal constituted for that purpose. The 4th respondent herein had filed the writ petition seeking a direction that the Returning Officer should prepare a list in conformity with the list published by the Registrar of KMC under Section 26 of the Act, 1961 and the Returning Officer should permit only such persons whose registration is renewed as per law and whose names are enlisted in the list published under Section 26 of the Karnataka Medical Council Registration Act, 1961. However, as noticed herein above, the learned Single Judge who had initially found that the Returning Officer could not have
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 published a separate list, however found that having regard to the amended rules, the Returning Officer was entitled to publish a separate list which would constitute the final voters list and therefore having specifically directed that the Returning Officer shall permit all those members whose claims were independently examined and separate orders are passed in terms of rule 4(3) of the Amended Rules, 2018, was required to have disposed of the writ petition itself. Unfortunately, the writ petition was not disposed of and the matter was thereafter considered beyond the scope of the writ petition.
12. We have noticed that in the case of Sant Sadguru Janardhan Swami (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the High Court could not have stayed the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral rolls. However, a challenge to the said illegality or breach of the Rules while preparing the electoral roll would be
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 questioned by the aggrieved party only by filing a duly constituted election petition before the Election Tribunal. Therefore, this Court would not hesitate to hold that the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge would go well beyond the scope of the writ petition. Insofar as the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondent, there can be no quarrel that this Court is entitled to mould the relief having regard to the subsequent events. But the question here is touching upon the scope of the writ petition, moreso, in the matters of election.
13. During the course of the argument it has been brought to the notice of this Court that some of the persons who were aggrieved by the declaration of the results filed an election petition in terms of Rule 19 of the Rules. The Returning Officer having scrutinized the same forwarded the petition to the State Government in terms of Rule 19(6) of the Rules. However, it has been stated that having regard to the impugned orders passed by the
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 learned Single Judge declaring the results of the election as quashed, it appears that the State Government too closed the election petitions. The orders were passed by the State Government on 09.08.2021.
14. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande would submit that since this Court is of the opinion that the only recourse that was available to the 4th respondent herein was to file a duly constituted election petition, however, having regard to the fact that the writ petition was proceeded with and elections were declared as quashed by the impugned order, there was no reason for the 4th respondent to have filed the election petition. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that if this Court is of the opinion that the results of the election and the preparation of the voters list could be challenged by filing duly constituted election petition, opportunity should be given to 4th respondent to do so.
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022
15. Consequently, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 07.06.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.211065/2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) However, since the State Government closed the election petitions that were filed by the aggrieved persons having regard to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and now that this Court has set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we direct the State Government to re-open the election petitions.
iv) If the 4th respondent is permitted to file an election petition in accordance with law, he may do so or having regard to the law of limitation, if it is not permissible for the 4th respondent to file an election petition at this length of time, then alternatively 4th respondent should be permitted to implead
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 himself in the election petition and contest the matter along with the persons who have already filed the election petitions.
v) Since the declaration of results were not given effect to consequent to the orders of stay passed by the learned Single Judge, the elected candidates should be permitted to take charge and complete the term from the date when they assumed office.
vi) Ordered accordingly.
At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande would submit that since the results of the election itself was declared as quashed and this Court by order dated 28.09.2021 had stayed the election for the post of President and Vice-President of the KMC, the operation of this order should be stayed for a period of four weeks to enable the 4th respondent to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently oppose the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel.
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB WA No. 200125 of 2021 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022 Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that at the instance of one person the elections to a statutory body has been withheld and indirectly the 4th respondent has enabled the previous governing body to continue to govern the Council and therefore the prayer made by the learned Senior Counsel should not be accorded to.
Having regard to the observations made hereinabove that the learned Single Judge has clearly gone beyond the scope of the writ petition and there being no doubt in the mind of this Court that such an order could not have been passed, and having regard to the fact that elections to the statutory body cannot be upset by a writ Court which has no such jurisdiction, we reject the prayer made by the learned Senior Counsel.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BL List No.1 Sl No.: 45 Ct:VK