R Potharaj S/O Rangappa vs Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga ... on 28 May, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

R Potharaj S/O Rangappa vs Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga ... on 28 May, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

1..

.5.)

{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28"' DAY OF MAY 2(.)1('}

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYI§~:i\"Ii1:I§I3§?IT
WRIT PETITION N0. 15350QF._?..()()6="'fL:B'%'I?'IE§V)'   Ax

BETWEEN:

R. Pothzwaj

S/0 Rangappa

Aged about 44 yea-u-S,  z
Mu1Iic%_paE C0unc:iE.0r,V  

19"' Ward, .
Town Municipal C()uI),cii--.;. .  V

Hi:-i:I'LIi9;VJ'_V    
Chi{'F.;1dE:rg£E. f)ixTr.ig:tI,   "
Pin-- 573 1-43.'  * 

Smi.-I R£1I1ji€l1£li11" 
§:'v";é()  Aw mu gm) ____ H .

 . V A;~.;"ed"":ib()V%L:~:A_45 yeaws,

 V  EV}E}fl1'if;1p£IE"~C()EIRCH01".
0 "20'," wa::rdI 

' T Own Muixicxipdi COLmcil,
H--iIf%.y=£I:', = 
C11I%:fa1Liu1'gz1 "District,

 = .IiéI_n-- 572 143.

-.V G'; PatIIdu1'z-Ingappa

 S/0 iVf£1l'LI{h£1ppa



Ix)

Aged about 50 years.
Municipai Counciim,
Wa:1'd.No.2.3, 
.Hi:'iyu1',

Chitradurga Disuici,
Pin« 57?. 143.

 %  I'   

(By Sm. R.V.Jayap1":1kash, Advocatéza)

AN D :

1.

EU

Lu

Deputy C0mInissi()ne;'_,
Chitmdurga District,'  
Chit1'adL11'gz1.  '
Pin" 577 50}. V H
Town Manii;ipé;11»%»VCV(3:g§§ci1:A V'
C11i1.1';1d"u1'g~:1V Eii-;§_1,f_i(f,t,  V

By  Chi8~f'V5Qff'iL;E6}". _ " 
Pin--i.572 i4.3.   '   "

D. Y€SH(T>I,1!h£1l'El! _ _ 
S/go Dodda T.E1ima':1;1i;'1I1

~  ..A':gegi__L§1L7<3L11 
 « , _I5z':ési1'df¢.;1t,"l_;tr1at.a Dal (Secular),
= TCm:;=adu;%g:;LDismct,
" I'<_;'u Vé(}.:-1y'a{hé" Nagar,

'A .Ifi.é.:'iy1.11'~57,2[ 144.

B.K;.V_I;ie11*iyzzpp:1

'T E},(0 Sauna Veerappa

V' *»-'Aged about 47 years,

Municipal. Councilor,
Ward N0. 1, 5



I-11'eVt1'S 't'<)i"Eow.€ ~:.¢_

Town Mtmicipz-1] Cotancii.
Hii'iyu_a'- 572 143.  RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. SN. Baaszivatitijta. f(.)r Respondents no. 3 & 4. ' Shri. KM. Shivayogiswa1ii'1y, High Court GovernmentPlezzde-1.' for Respondent no. i, Advocates) ' "

This Writ Petition is fileci undeij Art.i,eie;:'s ii2t2<'%yand'2t27% ofjthe Constitution of India praying to {]_LiéLg;h'~.Ai1n€3Xti1fC~'S, «.the:_"'ordeij dated .E7.10.2006 paissed by the -Resp<)'i1.eje"1it no.1}C_disgu21iifying> the petitioners from etaiitiiitaing the:.Co1.1i'1L:ii'o1'sWof the Respondent no.2, Town Municipal Coiineii. :

This Writ Petition "'eoin_in.g fin? iiléiz-1.1't.1]g this day, the Court rnade the foii. wing: -- " H 1 7 Heard the C o iin..{;e.I to.ij_ peti tione rs.

The f"-gets'ais;7'ai'e'-neeessary for the disposni of this petition Tire";.etitioners are .~;iiniI_ari\/ aw'r_rieved and therefore have . :1 V C _ joined in"-ffi.Ei'n'§z this petition as 21 common petition. Petitioners i iiﬂgii' E'i2_were eiected as the Counciiiors of the second respondent -- i\/hiiiicipnlitgy in the election held on 3.5.2()()E from .i:1n:it.:1 é 4 Dal(Secn]ar) party. which was a national party at that time. from Wards -- 19 and 20, respectiveiy, of the Town Municipal Council, Hiriytn: Petitioner no.3 was elected in the same eiection as a Councillor from Ward -- 2.3 as an independent candidate. it transpires that the third respondent had iiie;d"a«i .fe'o.ifr1pi;;1Aintp on 5.8.2(_)(.)4 against petitioner nos.i and 2 and asimi'i:ir"e.ornpizi_in'tup V against petitioner no.3 before the Deputy"'Co'inrniss.ionet, :i'ht'(3i1iT;_.{h the Chief Officer, Town Man_ic*ipai C"eunc.ii,i'i.Hii5i_y<nr.,. in capacity as the p1'6S.iCi€11t__Of Janata»._Da.E (Sec'LIi-a.l'.),Hﬁhitradurga District, aiieging that in the f3'i'€CE.iOi:i1::'[() 'tiienpo:»tt of president and \~'iC€~p1f6iiS_id€.t]t ofthe'-Co:ii'4ic--ii'held'on <i.8.2()04. the petitioners had voted in t'aiio_tii' of iCt.)'ngi"ess (1) candidates violating. the "whip"

t_visst.i-§:fd¥o1'i vPi_.:i'si1a1ii1: to the complaint. the authority had pi'S55'L1t:::Ci'_Z1iV'=S_iViOW'%tZiE[':iSt3 notice dated 18.8.2()()4 to the petitioners, pLi1's.nant tritiwijticli, the petitioners had fiied objections aiongwith ii -'~___i'ari z1pp'.ii.<;;tti(>ii seeki.ng time for filing additional objection _ stzite.rne.iit after' obtaining the copies of the complaint and other i '' -docninents. An ent,tLn_ry was thereafter heid and on behalf of the d eoinpiainaiiat. respoiident no.3 vvz,-is exzimined. It xvus the ease of {he third i'esp()i1_tient thai. petitioner 2103.1 and 2 were official candidates who had contested from .iz1m1t;;1 Du! (Sec:.iiz1i"')W party and got elected. And t'urthei', the third petitioner rig/érs_ eiecteci as an independent eaiidida-ite inthe e1ec't.i()'h;'_i1ei"e(.)iitihs_:ed'. as 21 candidate of Janata Dai (Seeiaiarf).A21s:f_hei"V thie._a1'Eii_:,i'Iiee .:ri1.di'itha1t he has S[Epp0I'{€d the presideiit,V_aon_ '.1.E.l .'(:c;_cz-is_i(_iii..$;.""._;"i3Liii'tiiei', aforesaid, inspite of issuance of.:rv.«<h'ip,"the pet'itivo.iie~rs had voted in fzivour of another rival. i3>;_1i*ty' tl1e'1=.e;'f'<)iiei__ they had violated Section 3(b) (pi? theifKz1rhat.z§lcaifL(_2.cé1i[_'ALithorities (Prohibition of Detection):A<:t,V'iw987"{hei:eina1itei" i~ei'eri'ed to as ' the Act' for brevity) . "i"Ih_e :';ziid.i'eSp()i1gi'eni V\/HS cross;--exainined and Exhibits i'.i,_':t{é. P._LE'8 we.re"m.:.a..i.iked thereof. The pe£'iti.(.)hei's. in turn, had ta1i§;(.i 'ten'tiei'ed"~the'i.r evicience and prostiuced Exhibits P. .1 to 13.3 and they had exéihiiiied 21 Coui1eii1oi' from Ward - 5 of Hiriyur Town VV.iViLlniCip;ti:'COUi'1Cii.

G 6

3. it is sought to be pointed out that insofzii' the whips said to have been issued, copies of which are produced at Anhe_xt.are.s «~ Q1, Q2 and Q3, to the petitioners._ respectively. there'-..4is~,_ no ma'=1tei'i:1i produced to show that the tttzthor of the _s*;t.id hwhipsi ~'v..-.i:,--_1;e, an authorised person to issue tlie,...whips._'i iI.i1::;?}Vt'ai;" the requirement of the definition of at 'piii.-iitie.g:iii'ipt11'ty'_vi'tm;iet'Sezgtiiion 2(vi) of the Act would indiettte th:tit~..eit shtittid he party or 21 person 21ttthm:iseci'*t:i*1e i"'pg_>1iti.eai"party who is competent to issue such a vviiipﬁf"Seeehidiy,the whip is said to have been S€1"»'t;3'(i4ii'.Vy_..."¢'l!} it._f'fif)s'tt'i"€ "eitttliet.1fCsid.entiai properties of the petitivoners. t.1iisVi;<;._n'et sttbsteiiiitiztteti by examining the so--e::iie.d witnesses t(:i't.h_e :Vmiii21_'./_.:i':i_ this:-;._t?i'is prepureti in this 1'ega1a"d. Itis ';[i__1s0 pdi i1E'i.(.iu()tl[ that in the impugned 01'CiC-1" passed on e('m_1p-l.:;_ii_11_.t'"whereby it is held that the petitioners have acted in vio'ie1_tion_0f7--__Se.eti01i 3(b) of the Act is C:(.)I1CeI'D€d, it is

-'~___itieinohstifttted that the order merely reiterates the contents of the _ {:.0i"epI,tiiait and the contettts of the written 't1I'gLll11E211i.S that are put ' '' -f(_a-i'tI't, without di.sctissing_ or acici:"essing; the evidence beibre the 3 "-3 authority or in addressing the <:i:_"cumstance as to whether the author of Exhibits (3.! to Q.3 was authcnised by a poiiticai party to issue the whip and that the somcalied whip as se1jweLi'-.oi::._ the petitioners. In the absence of which. it eouid 1"i()I_.14}»§3 said§ti'1ati"t--het-.» complaint stood estabiished to the detttiment ofthevs"p'e't'itii5'3i.{§r5 and' ' hence, would seek interference by °this--._e<)urti"on»the"

circumstance that, the order whi'e.h"'*runs irtto }v.3kioes not indicate any reasons t1<):""disei(_rses ' ie\{ider1ee"'(')n"record and therefore, would stand Vitiated as "notiibe.-Eng' a;'Vsp_e~aki:1g order. The rej.i;p()t1€ie'r';ts"have notuehosen to file any statement of objeetiohs. '' 4\N'!1iie~ijtrE1.e»;()t2.te'i:1i<>11 on behait' of the petitioners insofar as V'["=."14_'€"()V1.'d62.' ii;1'})ttg'i*;»:3d not taking into consideration the athsenfqe-v of tnaatev-riaE"evidence to establish any violation of Section J"~.3(b_}i__hitieigheigt, \-vhethetﬁthe person issuing the whip was an at1tiiot'is;e(i«.perso_n, is not found as a fact . Secondiy, the "c'o1':t'entic:>.:i"-ivlizttff~:5;'nnexures Q} to Q.3._ which are the respective whips iss_1.teIdi._to the petitioners eouid not be served personaiiy Z> since the petit.i.oi1ei*s were absent from their resicieiitial ziddresses and tl"aeret'oi'e, were served by way of afi'ixtui"e ()i.1gl1I to have been established tllfottgll iiitihzmii' witness is also l't>ti:itlVutt.)_ 'b_e 21 Cl1'CE!mS'[£l!"iC€ which is apparent fro :1": the contents (')l7§ll1t} iiii:p--.ii;gi:_eEi order. I _

5. In this View of tlie;n_iatteif,'.siiir,:e ;t.i.ithbi'it';y proceeded merely on the basis of L'1li"x'«.'_(')iI'i".'E)l2llI'iI.,'".75/'llli()U[lfga(ldl'€SSlllg the cotitentions put--f0rthl E3}/:"ti_ie1petiti0i;ei*s .la*a:_babLive, it would be iieeessary for 3 I"C1TiE.li'3d 0t7't'i'i'e--ii1;'1tte.ij"»tbr at i'e?:e01isicferzitit')n, witl":

t)ppt)i"ttiriity i9espt)i':d.eiits [()Wl€!lCl6I' t'tii'tl"aei' evidence, if iieCess2i.i'y';-agid' Viii'v.iew;' ot"th__e."'l:1'pse of time since the initiation of the C()l'l'}f3}_3lﬁl, wlnireli' 'woti'icf seriously tiﬁect the political careers of the.pe;itibiie1fs}..i_t is in the interest of justice tltat the enquiry be ti:i_it1__eiji"iipleted within at period of three iitonths, if not

--V eatlieif, fi'(>iii tlie date of receipt of 21 cei'tifiet'l copy of the order.

ii °'v.Witl"i this ObS€1'VElli0I'1, the writ petition is zillowed. '"Aiine.xtii'e --» S is qtiaslietl. The mzittei" is 1'CmLlE}dt3-Cl to the § 9 compeu-zm zziuthorily for :1 E'u1'the:' €.:0I1Sid(2l'iIti(')l] of the complaint, who sha1_l issue notices to the respective pzanies and the pa-miss are at liberty to tender fu:_111cr evi.den<:<3. if necessary and th?;.:;t:;11"ter, Ehe said z.1ut110rity shall deal with the Imtter in 2-u_:_<.:'(31"('i«:"1.f:_';-c__L<:e5'z.{iE'h law as directed herei.nabove.

L} H\'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court