Karnataka High Court
Padmavva @ Padmabai vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 6 November, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200139 OF 2023 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PADMAVVA @ PADMABAI
W/O REVANASIDDAPPA NADAGADDI,
AGE: ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: PRESIDENT GRAM PANCHAYAT, TORAVI,
R/O TORAVI, TALUKA TIKOTA,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR - 586 108.
...APPELLANT
SOMANATH (BY SRI. BASAWARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
PENTAPPA
MITTE AND:
High Court of
Karnataka
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT &
PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
RPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO.16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR,
BALLARI ROAD, SADASHIVA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 586 101.
RPTD. BY IT'S SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2023
3. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
KANAKADAS BADAVANER,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
6. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
TORAVI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TORAVI,
DISTRICT. VIJAYAPUR - 586 108.
7. PRAKASH S/O SATYAPPA JALAGERI,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: MEMBER GRAM PANCHAYAT TORAVI,
R/O. TORAVI, TALUKA TIKOTA,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR - 586 108.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C.BASAREDDY, PRL. G.A. FOR
R1, R3, & R4;
SRI.AMARESH S.ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT.RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6;
SRI.AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN W.P.NO.202101/2023 AND SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 08.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION
W.P.NO.202101/2023 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
R.DEVDAS, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB
WA No. 200139 of 2023
JUDGMENT
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL);
This writ appeal presents an unfortunate situation where the process of election though challenged by respondent No.7 by contending that the Rules of rotation in reservation have not been properly applied and the 7th respondent succeeded in obtaining at the hands of the learned Single Judge, quashing the reserving of the post of Adhyaksha of Toravi Gram Panchayat while directing the authorities to redo the exercise, however, on account of technicality and the efflux of time, the appellant has to succeed.
2. The briefs facts are that respondent No.7 appears to have filed W.P.No.201781/2023 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the authority to consider the objections filed by the respondent No.7 in the matter of reservation of the post of Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande that the said writ petition -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB WA No. 200139 of 2023 was disposed on 05.07.2023 with a direction to the respondent authority to take into consideration the objections filed at the hands of respondent No.7 within two weeks from the date of such submission and at any rate prior to issuance of calendar of events. However, it is not disputed that the gazette notification containing the reservation of the post of Adhyaksha of the Taluka was notified on 20.06.2023. The Returning Officer was appointed on 21.07.2023. The 7th respondent filed writ petition No.202101/2023 on 24.07.2023, being aggrieved of the reservation of the post of Adhyaksha to II 'A' Category. The elections were also held on 01.08.2023 and the appellant herein was declared as the elected candidate.
3. Unfortunately, all these events are not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order on 08.09.2023 finding that in all the three previous elections i.e., during the year 2000, 2010 and 2020, the post of -5- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB WA No. 200139 of 2023 Adhyaksha of Toravi Gram Panchayat was reserved for a Woman candidate, although under different categories. The writ petition was allowed while quashing the reservation notification insofar as the post of Adhyaksha of Toravi Gram Panchayat is concerned, while directing the 3rd respondent District Election Officer and Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapur to redo to exercise afresh, following the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of M.Abdul Azeez V/s The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Urban Development Department and Others, reported in ILR 2014 KAR 1839.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy, submits that it is trite law that once elections are held, no court can pass any orders setting aside the declaration of results, unless the elections are challenged by way of election petition before the competent Court. Moreover, it is submitted that 7th respondent failed to bring to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the calendar of events were announced -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB WA No. 200139 of 2023 on 21.07.2023, which should have brought an end to the writ petition, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency And Others reported in AIR 1952 SC 64.
5. Learned Counsel would submit that it was also the duty of the learned Government Advocate to have brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the calendar of events were announced on 21.07.2023 and therefore, no directions could be issued by this Court to redo the allotment of reservation to the posts of Adhyaksha in the Taluk. At any rate, it is submitted that the appellant is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, since it would affect the rights of the appellant who has been duly elected as Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat in a duly constituted election conducted by the competent authority.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB WA No. 200139 of 2023
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 would submit that the High Court is the only forum where the grievance of the 7th respondent could be vented. Learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to Section 19 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which provides for the grounds on which an election petition could be filed seeking declaration of election to be void. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the designated Court is not competent to go into the vires of the reservation notification and therefore, the 7th respondent had only this Court to approach. For the very same reason, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be termed as an interference in the process of election, since the elections have already been held. Therefore, this appeal will have to be considered on merits and this Court should go into the question of the correctness of the impugned notification of reservation. Learned Senior Counsel would -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB WA No. 200139 of 2023 submit that elaborate provisions are made in the Act to ensure the smooth functioning of the Gram Panchayat, even when the Adhyaksha and/or the Upadhayksha of the Gram Panchayat are not available. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that this Court should consider the correctness of the impugned order and thereafter pass necessary orders, if this Court finds that the impugned notification was not issued in accordance with law.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel for the 7th respondent, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent- State and the District Election Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner and having perused the appeal papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any doubt that in matters of election, this Court will have to go by the rule book. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, having regard to the celebrated decision of the Apex Court in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra), once the calendar of events -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB WA No. 200139 of 2023 are announced, no Court can pass any order that could cause interference in the process of election. No doubt, it has been clarified in subsequent decisions that Courts can pass orders which would assist the process of election and would not cause any interference in the process of election. But, we are faced with a situation where the elections have already been held and the results have been declared and the appellant has been functioning as Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat. It is also true that Section 19 of the Act, would not enable the 7th respondent to file an election petition challenging the impugned notification where the reservation is provided to the posts of Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of the Gram Panchayats of the Taluk. Nevertheless, this Court is of the considered opinion that any person aggrieved of the reservation notification, is required to diligently challenge the same in a manner known to law, secure interim orders or directions that would enable the aggrieved person to maintain the challenge raised to the reservation
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB WA No. 200139 of 2023 notification, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
8. Such submission should have been made at the hands of the 7th respondent before this Court and appropriate orders should have been obtained. If such interim orders were passed by the learned Single Judge before passing the final order, the candidates would have been kept on caution. They would not be permitted to contend that the elections are over, results are declared and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. If such interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge that the elections can go on subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, the seventh respondent would have been benefited. That not happening, there is no scope for the 7th respondent to contend that the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge have to be implemented.
9. Under such circumstances, where the impugned orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge not
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB WA No. 200139 of 2023 being aware of the fact that calendar of events were announced on 21.07.2023 and elections were held on 01.08.2023 and results were declared, the learned single Judge has proceeded to pass the impugned order on 08.09.2023 in the absence of the winning candidate or the other contestants to the election. That being the position, this Court has no other option than to allow the writ appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.202101/2023 is hereby set aside.
11. It is needless to observe that this Court has said nothing on the merits of the matter or the merits of the decision of the learned Single Judge.
12. This Court has to reiterate the word of caution expressed in many of the decisions of this Court that the process of rotation in reservation should commence atleast six months prior to the holding of the elections. The draft
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8435-DB WA No. 200139 of 2023 of the roster should be published well in advance calling for objections so that there would be ample time for the aggrieved persons to raise a challenge to such reservation. That directions not having been followed by the respondent-State, the State Election Commission and the District Election Officers, this Court would once again remind the State, the State Election Commission and the competent authorities to ensure that the draft reservation notifications are issued well in advance so that sufficient time will be available at the hands of the aggrieved persons to raise a challenge to such notifications.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SMP/JT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23