K. Devanna Naik S/O Late Dullayya Naik vs S. Pakkirappa S/O S. Obalappa on 12 July, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K. Devanna Naik S/O Late Dullayya Naik vs S. Pakkirappa S/O S. Obalappa on 12 July, 2011

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

4.'.§!;__r_1__c_i_:  V

~ g dA4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 12*" DAY or JULY 2911

BEFORE :

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE Mo:-mu.s»HA;N1Ai§1$'G€§,:;®..§_ 

MISC.CVL.No§.1360 3: i';¢§__:gz2o1i'~.  '

 

In ELECTION PETITWN vNo.2~3X2o0é« A  

Between 2

K.Devanna Naik   
S/0 late Duiiayya Naik  _  '
Aged about 55 years,-._ A

Advocate, . }1i:~* V . =
R/o.No.6~2~12;3;   .- 
Near B.R.B. Cc§E..i.eg_e;_ '
Raichur,  --------   

Raichur D.istrEct¥i3S,_4   _ _' ,. Petitioner

( By Sri swaraj ':2s.,",é\3%:%:a':é% sxﬁscate )

 'Z¥._. .S;Pak¥4,§Eap;_xé3 "~«.

' __.S'z'_<3 S;Q"§3aiagi:;*2;a'_j..
Aged' abeéjt .5: "years,
N015; eievcietiﬁs

-- Men'*:?3e'i-ésfParféament

R/o.Né,..i1;}'1,

  {>rrc%§r:an'te Rsad Fart

  ?:e.f¥a'l=*'y'
'E§eE'§afry §istr%:t~S83 151;



the Etectien Petition as the same does net disciose_a__ieti'se~;.ef« V.

action.

These Mi3<;Civi¥ Appiicatiens. j*ie£%§»'Er":'g '_E;31ee:?« h'e':e_rd"end"':
reserved for orders en 8:52.201}, pF€§m{1>.t1'F?.§:t€€3§*..tI"ie "samje.__e1t::e_A

this day :
ORDER on MISC.CVL.Nos;1360_& i3$;2 (20511

M:sc.cvt.No.1350/201;:  by the 1"
respondent  read with

Section 87 get' __ef the Peopie Act, 1951, for,s3tt.i tit.>;§Ar_n MiscA;Cy§'.No'.:£_3€:.2/Ziiiti' is filed by the 19:

respondent ti-?}d€3i' Qrderufv"II Rute 11(a) of C.P.C, read V4..w_ith V87V"<jf-vtE1_e_«Representation of the Peepfe Act; A"3t_9»S;1;--»era§gi«ng.,:fe:ﬁ_re-jectien ef' the election petitien as the saEt:e"dVeeé"ti'et 't;3'iéciose cause 0? actien. t.-Ttie efectien petition is ﬁfed for the feﬁfowirtg " (a) and declare the election respondent No.1 of Ralehtsr parliamentary cor:stituel<2~Cl/_A'R~':'__'_:ll?ll"

is lnvaléd and illegal as the respondent"h:e..tAeV.:ll'R 8: 2 were not qualified te"~a.c:ce;§t 4' nomination and same is void e:;'r:;3r2'iml'tted"

corrupted and illegal pra»etl.§e. V

(b) kindly declare th,at.__the:tj'etl'tl:ehe.§ is elected candidate by detii'e_lfih'g.v Secu red highest grates; "E-*tit:n5:." 2 lkaichur DarlEam.€§§1téAl%f'Y'._V ::*on§ts'Euej£:cyll"as" schedule (C) Tc)" """ efdet passed by Re's_pehd'ehthfe:.9» Section 100(1)(i)." e"be«;e__,___lt ls clear that the petitioner seeks c§.ecle~--ration of electien ef respondent No.1 rell'e:.ti?:--g«At"e7' Pa rliamehtary constituency as invalid, but, 3l":=e :;:e'e'§<e decieretlen that the reseehdehte 1 and 2 :v"v4."'e§e:<eVleet qtjaliﬁecl te cehtesl: the election as they are net 4'_'b._e§~ee»g§:eg te Scheduled Tribe category {Reiehur :'?e.t%.§ementety eeeetltuehcy eating the relevant eetéee ,2?

g if if *5- was reserved far Scheduied Tribe Categary). __The petétianer seeks farther declaration that he is art carzdiciate since he has secured highest vetegei other retiefs are alss swght far.

3. The afsrementicnecj._ap;:5¥'is:§iE0ns,»'L'éz§f»é _,_f:>':15e censidered in the light if m the eiectian petition. adxmcate for respondent No.1, 'thgz ta 12 of the eiecticm materéaﬁ facts and dc nqt.%diS¥:%.::§Sé'1--:;;'Qmg:,§ie§e ':a.u_s_e5of action.

4. Reddy, Eeamed Senior Advocafﬁ §£3£>'4.eV2:iE*_i_§*:g"' 0}: iﬁehaif of the 13': respondent averments made in paragraph-8 may néi: conciudé that the aifegatians made agairasf r€--:§p<1:aiden: $39.1 therein are true and Correat, ta mm, thg aﬁegatisns made against «:es§§;;@ént ¥'*é§.1 thsi resgendeat E'*~é@,§_ has given faise 2%/\

-7e declaration in Ferm--~D claiming to be belonging te Hindu Walmiki caste which comes under S<:heclu'le_:il:V:VV""l';§?iVt§e-«V. ctategery cannot be accepted. The que$t'i:):nviV'_pae' whether the certificate relating l--E.:VegaV'lly"'« obtained for the purpose 0fV,t'c_enteét.l_ng ele:tlio..n' erfthe question as to whether respvtintjenpt to Hindu Walmiki cemmunlﬁ purely a question of based on the material__ ceurse of trial.

Even the Hindu Walmlki Cemmunivllty = phcemmunity coming under Scheduled 'l'"t'l.4l;ie..cet.el§;Qfy.:_'pr not is also the matter to be .~"::pnslcl'e:reelV' l__€:i'E€l'u'"{l.!_l.iil«$lg the course of trial. The 'aV.v'e.rnFlentsp_"ln"*:e:§~e En paragraph-8 are very much ' neCen3_Sery_.foEj_Apilcenslderation of the election petition, _..lf'.j'j;'.._§::-asmue'h___e$, it is the specific case ef the petitiener that thevtlggfrespendent dees not belong te Scheduleé Tribe Veeieigery and eenseeeentiy he ie not entitled te centeet % ;{,m--t 25/ ;

if _<§t the eiectien from the constituency reservedV_t'-.tfQ_r Scheduted Tribe category. Hence, the in par°agraph~8 which contain rt3eterie¥_*"F'e'ct:$';V.tetztjttlsiit-_ remain.

5. In paragraph~9 of the petétéoner alieges __wheH trtrithdrew the nomination paper candidate from Bharatiya No.1 who was stated...te""*t)e~' tor respondent No.8 shouid to Contest the election, particularly'V"t..yy%raeh". the'Examination paper filed by I\_le.x_t'tzvva.e_..s1ot subscribed by 10 prepesers of the constituency. The sum and sub.Steh'c€Vv.§;txA;.;;;..éuaverments made in paragraph-9 reveal the"h:ti~.hV%natioh paper of the 13': respondent was not by 18 p§'GQQS€f'S and therefere, he sheuid have treated ee an Eneepehdent candidate arse free 'eymbei eeght te haee heee etﬁettee te himg $§§éE:€ such 1/?

"9- a procedure is not adepted, a<:cer:§Ehg"t-3._ t.he:pe't«E.tée_her, the deciaratieh of resutt ef re1S{:e'n_t£ent»"ego'.1:

improper.

Sri M.N.NahjLmdaV Ceunset further submits that the by any material fact; withdrawn the nomination ' end time fixed for Withdrawvéitfttﬁ withdrawing of the nominatiehpaVpetV'.".»§§y_V'"'r:e"seendent No.8, the Hst of contesting cehd:Ed'a.tesA"V-véere deeiared by the Election €)'E:fi'ce';<.f' 'EThug.,.A_accot€:i':'h'§; to him, the altegations made in ";:s__a';~eg*'raph_-'§ are baseiese. v..f'1f«hve jtmestioh as to whether the eeminatioh eep.e'r_ wef_th'e.__*:§.Si tesponeeht was eupperted by 10 '-,.. §§TQ§3OSef'$"CF net atse is e pure qeeetiee ef fact which V .A__hee,A.t:e""t:e decided besee en the meteriat te be eeffeeted '~:7§'U§"';t'§:}§'A£Ch€ eeetee of tréei, Set; the metetéai ee reeetd Ex.

WW.w

-"*PK<»t,,'m\\W M;

gt/«§ '

-- iO~ prima facie reveai that the hominaticje.uigyatfféi' . etf respondent No.8 was permitted teﬂbe on the date and time fixed €¢a%tt«;;tm&a;«:%;r;g neméhatien papers. Thus, it v.b'e._V_seei}*§ the withdrawing of neméhavtieh g3at;j'et'Vt.ﬁ'§3§"-~t.;¢speh'de':it No.8 was Encerrectg However, alleges that the nominatiehv ""'No;1 is not supported byt.hVe:."sev§:tVVetiVestion has to be one into. ...He"r'te:e,7:1he' paragraph-9 cannot e struckivdowm a

7. i-tc"m{e'~.ives9';,'St;»*t§7i",»eVI\§.VNanjuhcia Reddy, learned .Senier_§£COunseI"-Aéshjuettified in submitting that the v"eveArm_er1tS"emedve in paragraph~1O are based on ceh'jeC[t_ur1e3:""~~./earéﬁw'eurmises. The petitioner avers ' VV'Semethingv_§_"age'*ihst the reepehdent Neg}. ----~ the returned "":?".'Aé:eh:iEtjLete the said earagraph, Accerdihg to the '"pEeté.tEee.e:; he has reiiebiy Eeamt that the reepeeeeet 'j'§:I:e,_:§e&sj net ereeeee the vetere liet extteete at the time .17.

La averred are based merely on conjectures, surm'i:~:~..es and assumptions. No materiai fact is dise.le_eeif'§"i.n"-«V. par*egrag3h-1Q which is heipfui tn: the petitioner. Moreover. the aiiegati<j>hs»_efe 'hj1atje._:agaVinst_ :' respondent No.1 as if he is aRe_turni'n§'Qffic.ei*- aiiegations are witheut any basiVis".«.i InVV view "the; same, the pieadings in paFagVFa_t§':1f'1'O t*h'e.'A:'e.Iectien petition need to be struck eff, Ac~cevt<i:i~nVg'iy;.Vtheyvéiéiiteﬁstruck off.

8. In '----t.t;e'«"v.ei'e'ction petition, the D€U'€iOi'1€£;' tesvijendent No.2 does not beiong to Asigheduieid:i.7i*-:§i:iiie:i'eiid therefore he shouid not have tgeen. eiiezztedx te eontesi: the election as the v"vconst.iti;en'cTy in..._question is a reserved Constituency for Si:ii**ie€"ii¥..i_Vied"?i"_if.iv_i;>ei:;'eetegory. It is seeeificaiiy averted that Vgzietitieinerﬁeiehgs te Kshatriya Caste whieh sees net Scheciuied Tribe eategery. Since the 'V-._"*--e§eei'eta'tiee is eeeght far by the eetitieeer in his favour gettieg hire eieeteei, the evermeets made ie

-[;1.-

acceptance of nomination paper of respond.e:ri't"=E\ij'e._2f--.____"'_ weuid not materiatiy affect the re<5.uLt_4of_~'th'e*-:i%eti:~rr1'ed 'V candidate, inasmuch as, at the votes t$ei~%'ed'ttEn"~fe'veL§£._,\Q'fii.r_j respondent Ne.2 wouid have be.e'n~.V_peifed.__in _fea;je"t.z;r"'e.f the petﬁtioner and the petititmer cerr':"rret'-etreeurﬁte'thetiaii the vetes potted in favour wouid have been potted in WEN have to be considereiﬁ of the matter after fun fledged necessary to consider such questiqrieof _He'rec'e, this Court does not wish to strik;e"eff in paragraphs--l1 and 12 of jvtjtmtiton. In View of the above, fotiewing order' '--':_s:« m e'€je_ : ' ~ AA TThe..V__A'p§ead§ngs in paragraptrli) ef the eiectéen éee-tE'teeAA~'ere struck eff; Other pieaéirtgs wet continue to we ':'_'rer:'§air:. Since materéai everments cerstaining meteriai " "feete are everred in the Eleetéee Petitéert. the ereyer fer §'€jE£§i{}t'1 ef the eieetéee eetitee ée §ﬁe'}:E€E$€§¥ Accerdmgly, Misc.CvI.No.1360/2811 £5 disposed of with a direction to strike aft' the pieadings <:ontai_;w...e§;ci'_:'m_ paragraph~1O of the eiecticm petiton. 1362/2011 is rejected.

"'b§<:/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court