Shri.Bandappa Kushappa Madar S/O ... vs Shri.Hanumathrayagouda Patil And Ors on 8 November, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri.Bandappa Kushappa Madar S/O ... vs Shri.Hanumathrayagouda Patil And Ors on 8 November, 2022

Bench: R. Devdas

                          1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                       BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS


       WRIT PETITION No.203551/2015 (LB-ELE)


BETWEEN:

SHRI.BANDAPPA KUSHAPPA MADAR
S/O KUSHAPPA BASAPPA MADAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDENT OF WARD NO.4
OF JIGJAVANI VILLAGE,
TQ : INDI
DIST : VIJAYPUR

                                       ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.K. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     SHRI HANUMANTHRAYAGOUDA PATIL
       S/O SHIVANAGOWDA PATIL
       AGED MAJOR
       RESIDENT OF WARD NO.4 OF
       JIGJAVANI VILLAGE,
       TQ. INDI-586101.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       VIJAYAPURA
       DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101.
                           2



3.   KARNATAKA STATE
     ELECTION COMMISSION
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     UNDER SECRETARY
     KSCMF BUILDING
     (BEHIND) NO.81,
     CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
     BANGALORE-52

4.   RETURNING OFFICER/
     ELECTION OFFICER
     NO.32 JIGAGIVANAGI
     GRAM PANCHAYAT
     TQ. INDI,
     DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA,
 ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR,
 AGA FOR R2 & R4; SRI P.S. MALIPATIL,
 ADVOCATE FOR R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE WRIT OF QUO-WARRANT AGAINST THE 1 ST
RESPONDENT THAT HE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO HOLD THE
OFFICE OF MEMBER OF WARD No.4 OF GIGJAVANI-32
GRAM PANCHAYATH AND ETC.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                              3



                          ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The prayer made in the writ petition is to issue a writ of quo-warrant against respondent No.1 who contested for the post of Adhyaksha of Jigjivani Gram Panchayat, Indi Taluk and succeeded.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the term of the office of Adhyaksha has been completed and the prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is another prayer seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 4 to initiate criminal action against respondent No.1 for furnishing wrong information or for suppressing material information regarding pending criminal cases.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, since if the petitioner 4 intended to make any allegation against respondent No.1 that he was disqualified from contesting election on the ground that certain criminal cases were pending against him then, it is one of the grounds prescribed under Section 19 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 to file an election petition. Therefore, a writ petition cannot be a remedy to challenge the election of the first respondent. On that ground also writ petition cannot be maintained.

Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE VNR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court