Karnataka High Court
Smt. Prameela W/O Bhimaraya vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 5 March, 2013
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D V Shylendra Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2013
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Writ Petition No.100694 of 2013 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
PRAMEELA W/O BHIMARAYA
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O H.NO.5-1-799
VITHAL HEROOR NAGAR
GULBARGA ROAD, AFZALPUR-585301.
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI AMARESH S ROJA, ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GULBARGA-585101.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER
TOWN PANCHAYAT AFZALPUR-585301.
4. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN PANCHAYAT AFZALPUR-585301.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANAVENDRA REDDY, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 27.03.2013 IN
REFERENCE NIL AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.2.2013 IN
REFERENCE NIL ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D AND D1 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is by the person who had filed her nomination papers as a candidate for getting elected from Ward No.13 in Afzalpur Town Municipality reserved for Scheduled Tribe Women.
2. The nomination papers though initially had been accepted by the Returning Officer on 25.02.2013 i.e., the date of scrutiny of the papers, the petitioner having been subsequently intimated on 27.02.2013 that the candidate set up by the Bharatiya Janata Party in 'B' form having not withdrawn her candidature and the petitioner being a dummy candidate and also her nomination papers being -3- not supported by necessary papers and proposal etc., to consider her candidature as an independent candidate, her nomination papers having been subsequently rejected, the present petition seeking following prayers:
a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the notice dated 27.02.2013 in reference nil and endorsement dated 27.02.2013 in reference nil issued by the respondent No.3, vide Annexure-D and D1, in the interest of justice and equity.
b) Pass such other order or direction as deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Amaresh S Roja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Returning Officer though had initially accepted the nomination papers, has subsequently rejected the same on 27.02.2013 and acted in a most arbitrary manner and manifestly erroneous and this is a fit case where interference is warranted; though otherwise in such -4- election process and election matters Courts will not interfere as there is a bar under the Constitution, Sri Amaresh Roja has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel V. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel and others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 200 and submits that the Supreme Court did make an exception in this case for interference, having regard to the fact that the authorities had abused or misused the power and such abuse and misuse is so obvious on the face of the record and decision making process vitiated due to irrationality, unreasonableness and perversity and such matter warrants interference within the scope of judicial review of administrative action etc.
4. Notice had been issued to the respondents and the respondents are represented by Sri. Manavendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate.
-5-
5. Sri Manavendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate submits that no exception can be made in this case and the judgment of the Supreme Court is distinguished as it is not in the context of a general election, as is in the present case to the Municipalities, but in the context of challenging the election of President and Vice President. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate seeks to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nandiesha Reddy V. Kavitha Mahesh reported in (2011) 7 SCC 721 and points out that the petitioner is also one who can be described as a candidate entitled for remedy under the Karnataka Municipalties Act, 1964 for wrongful rejection of her nomination papers.
5. Therefore, submission of Sri Amaresh Roja that the petitioner will be left high and dry as she has no remedy even under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 has no basis.
-6-
6. In so far as the law relating to the bar created under the Constitution under Article 243 ZG is concerned, it is on par with the provisions of Article 329 of the Constitution of India in the case of general elections to the Assemblies and the Parliament.
7. The judgment of the Supreme Court on which Sri.Roja, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon was rendered in the context of not a general election either for the municipalities or to the assemblies or the Parliament, but a limited one, in the sense that, an election conducted amongst the councilors for electing President or Vice President and having a limited impact.
8. The purpose of not interfering by the Courts in the election process as per the bar is that the election once set in the motion, should not be interfered by the courts because of an individual grievance, as it could upset the election process which is conducted on a large -7- scale for all persons in general. The individual grievances are therefore to be worked out as per the statutory provisions before the Election Tribunal. It is for these reasons, this petition is also not entertained, but reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out her rights and remedies before the Election Tribunal or any other forum provided in law.
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk