Karnataka High Court
N Nanjundaiah vs The Karnataka State Election ... on 6 March, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.10862/2013 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
N.NANJUNDAIAH,
S/O.LATE NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.2253, 17TH CROSS,
KALLAHALLI, V.V.NAGAR,
MANDYA-571401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.D.S.HOSMATH & SRI.VINAY D.HOSMATH, ADVS.)
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
ELECTION COMMISSION,
BY TIS SECRETARY,
NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-52.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER &
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS,
189, MANDYA VIDHANA SABHA KSHETRA,
MANDYA-571401
2
4. THE THASILDAR & ASSISTANT
REGISTRATION OFFICER
OF VOTERS LIST,
NO.189, MANDYA VIDHANA
SABHA KSHETRA,
MANDYA-571401.
5. THE MANDYA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
MANDYA-571401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R1
SRI. N.B. VISHWANATH, AGA FOR R2-R4
SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADV. FOR A.NAGARAJAPPA FOR
R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE VOTERS LIST VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED
21.2.2013, ANNEXURE-D DATED 23.7.2012/21.2.2013,
ANNEXURE-E DATED 21.2.2013 AND ANNEXURE-F
DATED 21.2.2013.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the voters list dated 23.07.2012 and 21.02.2013 which are impugned at Annexures - C to F to the petition. The issue in the petition relates to the grievance regarding the 3 publication of the voters list for the elections to be held to the Municipalities more particularly, in the instant case for the elections in the Mandya District.
2. The grievance putforth by the petitioner is that the voters list which had been originally published has now been altered in view of the additional voters list being issued and that too after the commencement of the election process by issue of calendar of events. In this regard, it is pointed that as per the calendar of events, the election process had commenced on 16.02.2013, while the impugned voters list have been issued on 21.02.2013 which is subsequent and therefore the action of the respondents cannot be justified. In that regard, reference is made to Section 14 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act which provides the manner in which the voters list is to be taken into consideration.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 4 Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. G. Nagappa and Others reported in AIR 1975 SC 1708 to contend that once the election process has commenced, the voters list cannot be altered.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would however seek to justify the action. It is contended that the last date for filing the nominations was 23.02.2013 and insofar as the additional voters list, though the list as at Annexure- C has been published on 21.02.2013, it is published prior to the last date for filing the nominations. The voters list as at Annexure-D is issued on 23.07.2012 which is much prior to the commencement of the election process. It is in that context contended that the publication of the voters list would be justified as it is done to rectify the errors and the same does not call for interference. Alternately, it is contended that if at all either the petitioner or any of the candidates are aggrieved by the same, they can only raise their dispute after the election and this Court would not 5 interfere with the election process as has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, it is contended that the prayer sought in the petition is liable to be rejected.
5. In the light of the rival contentions, insofar as the position as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to supra there could be no alteration of the voters list after the election process has commenced. However, the question for consideration in the instant petition is whether this Court can interfere at this stage.
6. Firstly, with regard to the voters list which had been relied upon, it is no doubt true that one of the voters list has been published on 21.02.2013 i.e. after the commencement of the election process by issue of calendar of events. Even if this aspect of the matter is kept in view, the fact that the voting is scheduled to take place on 07.03.2013 i.e. tomorrow cannot be ignored. 6 Even though this petition was filed on 28.02.2013, it would not be possible for this Court to interfere at this juncture, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also indicated that the Court while entertaining the petition under Article 226 should not interfere with the election process. However, any of the aggrieved parties would be entitled to avail their remedies in accordance with law after the election process is completed. Insofar as the election to the Municipalities, Section 21 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act provides for raising election dispute in that regard. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the merits of the rival contentions need not be decided in the instant petition and it would be left upon to avail the same in the appropriate proceedings.
7. With the said liberty, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*