Karnataka High Court
Roopa Narasegowda vs Smt. Gayatridevi M S on 16 August, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION NO.15678/2016(LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
ROOPA NARASEGOWDA
W/O B.M.NARSEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
SOCIAL WORKER,
R/AT BIRAMANAHALLI
C.S.PURA HOBLI-572 213
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL
FOR SRI GANGADHAR J M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GAYATRIDEVI M.S.
W/O B.S.NAGARAJU,
HOUSE NO.773, HMT LAYOUT,
NELLAGADARANHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 072.
2. THE TAHASILDAR OF GUBI TALUKA
OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR
GUBBI-572216
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
Date of Order 16-08-2017 W.P.No.15678/2016
Roopa Narasegowda Vs. Gayatridevi M S & Others.
2/6
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION,
TIPTUR-572 201
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D R ANANDEESHWARA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3
SRI M B NARGUND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI LAXMINARAYAN N HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO
OUSTING R-1 FROM MEMBERSHIP OF
CHANDRASHEKARAPURA ZILLA PANCHAYAT
CONSTITUENCY - 06, IN TUMKUR ZILLA PANCHAYAT
& ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Sr. Counsel for Sri Gangadhar J M, Adv. for Petitioner Sri D R Anandeeshwara, HCGP for Respondents 2 and 3 Sri M B Nargund, Sr. Counsel for Sri Laxminarayan N Hegde, Adv. for Respondent No. 1.
The petitioner-Roopa Narasegowda has filed this petition seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto against the Date of Order 16-08-2017 W.P.No.15678/2016 Roopa Narasegowda Vs. Gayatridevi M S & Others. 3/6 elected member of the Tumkur Zilla Panchayath- respondent No.1 Smt.Gayatri Devi.M.S. The prayers made in the petition are as follows:
a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Quo Warranto ousting Respondent No.1 from membership of Chandrashekarapura Zilla Panchayat Constituency-06, in Tumkur Zilla Panchayat.
b) Declare the election result of 1st
respondent, Annexure-A, dated
23.02.2016 and inclusion of the 1st respondent name in the voter list of Boranhallipalya Village, C.S. Pura Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Turavakere Vidhana Sabha Constituency as illegal, void ab initio and inoperative in law by appropriate writ order or direction.
c) Grant such other reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to costs.
2. A preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel for the respondents drawing the attention of the Court towards Section 15 r/w Section 171 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 that the petitioner has the remedy by way of Date of Order 16-08-2017 W.P.No.15678/2016 Roopa Narasegowda Vs. Gayatridevi M S & Others. 4/6 election petition, under these provisions, before the concerned Court and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.
3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Venkatachalam Vs. A.Swamickan and another reported in (1999)4 Supreme Court Cases 526 (paragraphs 25 to 27) and has submitted that the petitioner can still invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, since the concerned Assistant Commissioner had given an endorsement to the petitioner that the respondent's name was never transferred from Dasarahalli to C.S.Pura legislative assembly, where she contested the said election.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted before the Court that despite the objection raised by the concerned returning officer, considering the registration of the respondent in Date of Order 16-08-2017 W.P.No.15678/2016 Roopa Narasegowda Vs. Gayatridevi M S & Others. 5/6 the constituency in question namely, C.S.Pura, her nomination for the said election was accepted, and after the electoral process, she was declared elected and therefore, the said endorsement of the Assistant Commissioner cannot be believed as gospel truth and moreover, since the respondent No.1 was not heard in the matter before giving this endorsement by the Assistant Commissioner to the present petitioner, such disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction.
5. To the availability of remedy by way of election petition under Section 15 r/w Section 171 of the Act, however, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the legal position.
6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is satisfied that no Writ of Quo Warranto deserves to be issued in the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the disputed questions about the name of Date of Order 16-08-2017 W.P.No.15678/2016 Roopa Narasegowda Vs. Gayatridevi M S & Others. 6/6 the respondent having been entered in the constituency in question C.S.Pura wherefrom she contested in the Zilla Panchayath elections is a matter to be adjudicated before the competent Election Tribunal. The rival evidence as relied upon by both the parties before this Court has to be proved and tested in accordance with law before such Election Tribunal.
7. In view of the effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section Section 15 r/w Section 171 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the present writ petition is held to be not maintainable. The same is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp