Karnataka High Court
Sri K Ramakrishnappa S/O Gundappa vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 31 July, 2009
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH couar OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED mzs THE 315* DAY or JULY, 2009
PRESENT
THE HoN*aLE MRJUSTICE v.<3opALA Gow::sgé;% .j _f
AND
"me HOWBLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MAE§IF1A'TH
wan' APPEAL NO.2}.1 c":'4I=,___mg;,,,§
czw; %
BETWEEN
1. Sri K RAM/XVKRESHVNAPPA.
s/0 G£_iNDAF"PA" _
V AGeo;A1a:>uT 42;3{EARs
* «R/O5!_('AS;_HIPURA \r1*LL~,*>.«:;E
§4i}LBAGALT{ixL,UK
Kama. :>:sm1g:r%%- 513 631
A _ % AWELLANT
F' {By Sm; A.-._$R-EKANTE GOWDA & Sr! M.:~:.
% .%%1{'T~;«.,_n;m_%uNoA RVEDDY, ADVOCATES)
STATE OF KARNATAKA
wan' APPEAL No.23: & 4e?_fc;>E gO"G3(L"§;§;.E;:j"'
2. STATE ELE(E1 "iQN' CD$'?MiSSION OF KARNATAKA
% asbmi' KS€2_MPF BUILDING
% 3. Sr?-.K R;xI~2A;§<éIsHNAPPA
" ~ VMu«:,BAcsAL --- 553 131
A' 'KHRISHNAPPA
".5/0 RAMAPPA
WRET AP!"-'Q1. NQ.21Z£2,QQ8
BETWEEN:
1. Sri ALANGUR RAMANNA
SIG GANESHAPPA
AGED AEOUT 35 YEARS
R/0 SONNAVADI VILLAGE : %
KASABA HOBLI
MULABAGAL TALUK-563 131., %
KOLAR DISTRICT. _ V , '
.";;_APPEL:A:s;1'kkAT %
(By Sri D s RAMAcHANmR.;xREt>t5Y1; %~Ap§mcATs)A%%
AND:
1. THE STATiE~VQF.!éfi§§Rf§.iXTA5{i§A«:
REP BY IT3.S;§:CREE:TARY, *
DEFARTMENT €3VFT.v_Ri1RAL"D_EVEL0?MENT
AND PANCHAYA V' *
M s BuiL;3iN<;,'5Aa1%r3ALs)V;iE -» 550 001
RWBYT1':-5&5 C0"MM.IS5IONER
A %VN0k.3,v .1 'r-w.oR.,,_ CUNNINGHAM ROAD
_EA_NGALQ§iE.'j}.,560 052.
MAJORS/0 GUNDAPPA
" ..KAsHIs=uRAGR.AMA, SALLA POST
% . - . VMuLa;A<;AL.TALuK
:2. "rrze STATE er KARNATAKA
AGED 53 YEARS
Rim' AVANI VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK-563 131
Kama oxsmxcr.
aesvowoemsa A
(By Sr! MJSEARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR. (M4 '* A
Sri H.M.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1
Sri K.N. PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE FG_B...R2 &
SriG.A.SR1KANT'E GOWDA, ADVOCATE F~:m«R33
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U55 4'Os='THE Tv:{Am+:ATA;%kAV%
HIGH coum' ACT PRAYING Tca--._s::"r ASI!){:"A*¥'§~iE" ORDER
PASSED IN THE wan' §__'ETITIQl_'£_ ':'N.§)'.V.1u169'9;'ZOO6 _TDATED
O4/01/2008.
WRIT APPEAL? k?§.<§fi°\7gL",«:;3,;£i§;%3A'&% Q '
1. sr: R KRISHNAPP1?-g'~ M "
szo RAM;a..9PA , _
AGED Aeouzrss 'YEARS
P_J'fiaT AVANI VI'LLA.GE
A K:3L_AR'*a:<$TaL1cT. ...AF'PELLANT
(Esysr: r%n%:;s.:a;¢»;$kANA aeoov, ADVOCATE)
. 'REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYATH RAJ
M S BUILQING, BANGALORE - 560 001
Q,jLr"
2. STATE ELECTION COMMI§S-i0N OF KARNATAKA
REP BY THE COMMISSIONER
SEHINO KSCMPF BUILDING
NO.8, I FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE- 550 052
3. SR1 K RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O GUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
KASHIPURAGRAMA BALL!-\ POST
MULBAGAL TALUK - 553 131 A'
4. SRIALANGUR RAMANNA A
5/0 GANESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O somw-\vAoI vrzmcae
KASABA HOBLI, ~ ; g
MuLaA<;AL TAi.UK--~ 553131;; 1 R *
KOLAR msraxczt " "
R: RR TQQRESPONDENTS
(By sa--1 --H'.M.M:%%iJ'UNATH-,.. 'AGA ma R1, Sri mu. PHANINDRATADVOCATE"«.__F'0R R2, Sr! G.A.SRIKANTE G(3WDA,AB'J_OCATE FUR R3. & 5:1 as. RAMACHANDRA aem:>'a'_. _VADVC3€2AWV FOR R4) was wiim APPEAL FILED U15 4 OF THE KARNATAKA 'HIGH rzouwcr ACT PRAYING T0 $5? ASIDE THE oaosa T msjsen IN THE WRIT permou No.11e99/zoos DATED Tn4.,zo1';t2oos IN so FAR AS comceamso "re THE FIRST 3 Pcrms (A, 3 3; <2).
e.€A/ certioreri to quash the impugned order of the State Election Commission dated 293.2066 consequentlal reliefs.
4. The learned single Judge by.t»he' ol'der came to the conclusion that the order'of;'_the State Commission is not based on al:*.tt'l'a..l.. faots, ibut % on asstzmptmn and sun'r:l%s_es" said order. Aggrieved by tn..e~s:a';ne, 4 have filed Writ Appeal &"..2'1?;--2oaa_;i_ ' S. Agvierievedv the learned slngle Judge in so far as'it pertainse_t'owiéroints "A", "s" and "C" in the __"order,V" the.._.?§titioner before the learned Single A"v."{ud:g'e .hasVA_va%su.:fi:ved Writ Appeal 407/03. 5.3a" We_h'a'§e heard Srl Ramachandra Raddy, learned '";ou'nsa_l« ajfipearing for the appellant in WA. 217/08, Sri .'.rllllanjVn'nda Raddy, learned senior counsel appearing on e?/<"
.....11...
Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the words in the statuten "after giving a reasonable opportunity of A. 2 wouid necessariiy mean that the said person wouio or ' H be heard, which is a minimum requironi"ent.of".law« in compliance with the principles 'of:"--nnturéiytj~astiéo;.., Therefore the right of the Petittonérwhoéevmen-mers§jib'r'to the Ziiia Panchayat is devciaured as"'ni§i: nod vo§dT;'*ofAv'i::elng heard inciudes the recoroin'gr_"ofr-..!§;§o' 3:16 his. witnesses which is1:r:¥eafi§g V'§Sfitijr:inttno.._j:iri'3:§ictIon of the State Elections 167(2) of The Panch ayat;~R"a"_'i ii?-3 "
10. Regarolrug m1:g~'¢%sr%rore:at:ng to the fact that the __proceeo.;;;ngsrAare qi1a.si cnn§inal in nature, the teamed single hgzsudrgeo,¢asnen%,%t§%n'*:n%e right conciusion and held that the pro'teérJ.iVnAa's 'n~oi:'V'ouasi criminal in nature and hence the s?:ar:dar'd "proof required is a preponderance of W ond not a proof beyond reasonable doubt. M4"
_ 13 ..
13. Mr. Ramachancira Reddy, learned counsei appearing fer the appeiient in WA. 217/2008 contends that reiiance has been placed by the iearhed Singi_e..,iu:dgVe on documents that are tampered. Therefore _ single Judge, has erroneousiy recorded hie" «The v learned Single Judge shouid not hevei_-pievced..e.hy- 4rei'i:e_heeA' on the tampered documents,.»hutV shoui_-if Writ Petition. He further contenéfithet the Single Judge exceeded his ju:ti_"sfdi_¢t£ion;V-_e'n'd_"¢to'e$idered the writ petition as if if') exercieeee. i.,afiheiietie powers. The jurisdiction L:_ni¢§er:5.=-;:fi:itfi:es the Constitution of India is from the jurisdictien of an appeilate Single Judge, therefore, cemnj.§tte~d an err.o:rv_both on facts and in law in considering ¥ihe..ogrit>:Anetitien_ as an appeai and granted the relief in his contends that it is the State Eiectien V «V Cerh'mis$ioh"'V'that is the fact finding authority which has xi"iiifiapprecieteci the evidence and recorded its fineihgs with .' reeiseins. The teamed Single Judge has therefore 6%"
.. 3; ..
committed an error in interfering with the finding of fact and has substituted the same with his own findings and reasons, which is not iwaiiy correct.
14. We are unable to accede to the submi.$$i§fl$' iearned counsel for the appeiiant.:;';bAmThe ,leertI1'eci_':
Judge whiie considering the Writ_Petit'isoh"--has relied on facts placed before the State 'Eie'ct§on Corhmijssiohiwwwihe iearneci sinqie Judge camevto cohciusioh"ahvd heid that the Petitioner has resighecifftom~«._h'is'.j'V_:hembership of the Gram"i5éhchvayet7jéhci'the sieiiievivéwas accepted by the Adhyakshxés. of the':§rernV_::'Penchayat vide Annexure-R2 which was sent to. Athe"~"'nVDeputy Commissioner Koiar ,f""intimétihg__--Ltrue. resi§nati'on. so far as these documentsl icoihcemed which refer to the factum of resiigrfiétiontthesiciiearned Single ludge has rightly come to saici chnciusion and recorded his findings by setting efsicieiithe finding of the State Eiectioh Commission. The V' ..__'"V'cohi:ent§on of the learned counsei for the Appeliant in Writ <y,4-~v .. 15 ..
Apeeilant in Writ Appeal No.40?/2008 to hls membership of the Gram Fanchayat within the perlod prescribed irrthoe statute. A reading of the lmpugned order of single Judge would clearly indicate that making process by the State T_ erroneous in law for non consieeratlon..ef--legal Tevé.tlen'te'o'nvr 'V record. The learned Slngle luclglenfies of the the finding of fact recordedi§'st'_the"h§tet--e_é*lectionAComrrzlssion is erroneous and i1ence"_lutl'lVc,;';§v'5v:V"' called for. Placlno vttoeégments by the State Election therefore called for interventron'; ewe: with the View of the learner: _slnol"e judge Ae_nd~~*">lhence we find no reason to "V"i--nAter?e}e theAAee:-r.--e«i'n the Appeals filed by respondents
16. The eohtention of the learned counsel on behalf of Appellant in Writ Appeal No.21'?/2098 that there can A jibe'"no.?5lnterference with the order of the State Election <>€!:-'r _ 1'} ..
Commissions in so far as the facts are concerned, in exercise of the power of the learned Singie Judge Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, a unsustainable in law. In the Instant case, as~Vcanj'.tle*--l.:seen V"
from the order of the learned Singlei=,Judge,1tl*sere_'has*tieene l no interference so far as facts a're__.conce_rned. sinqie Judge was concerned as toVV.i§inetnet'-based facts the State Election Con~.§fi'i«ssi<.i'n right decision or not ?. The appreciation::of"facts the Election Commission beEn§;.c.r1;:er\ierse"";en_d.::Vtiieconciusion being based oria:+;su:lé;,:;uoi-gist a_ne.V.:'surrn"ises, has therefore ted to the reverse! of theVVVor(;lei*'.~ « .. .. . Mr. rilanjunda Ready, iearned senior counsei of the appeiiant's counsel in WA.
21.1}'i_2_i8% contends that the documents reiied upon are 'c.reatecl; vitae documents show that the petitioner had not "a'esig_ned as a member.
Qflw .. 13 ..
18. The learned single Juege has censidered the documents predated before the State Eiectien Commission in support of the reseective claims and counter cien3=...=_s__ ef the parties. Having considered the same, the singie Judge was of the View that the appeizeintini Appeal No.40?/2008 had resigneannzs rs1§e2"nheV:?'s'!'iiT;;)v4.'_:§)y'i'._A'Au tendering the resignation within 051 the date of declaration of hi«:*{'memAb'er$¥:ie'»v-ofetvheeeeZiiie " L' Fanchayat, Koiar.
19. Sri Ravivarma K-nVmej:',:'5Ieefne'd»'$enior counsel appearing ._foe"Le*:h--e_::"eppeI'ient:'s counsel in writ Apnea! No.40?/0.82 writ appeei has been filed aggne\i'ed byVthe._Vfindiri}g on three points "A", "B" and ejfhis contention he reiies on the evidence of A"i1XW'._3.*a'e« izhe endorsement dated 5.5.2006. 2:3. .--._'Furthermore, the rwignatien of the petitioner on .fiz».1e,2G0'6 " is not eniy supported by evidence, but the
-__"e$?i'dence of the other witnesses, PW2 and ?W3 aiso who
-were exarninee on beheif of the Appeiients in Writ Appeal
-"' .. 23 ..
having been accepted by the President on 12.1.2006, based on evidence of P,Ws 2 and 3 that they have and sent the ietter Ex.P.2 to the Deputy Come-1'i$$iori.__er._.;_::"
clearly estabiishes the fact of the res£gna.ttVon.VV Appeilant. The error committed 'State Commission in its order has been set learned Single Judge by recordinllgwirieesonell irripopned order after perusal of produced before the State' findings recorded by t%_§el'f;Sltate;i«. E!=ier:t:io'n* ::C:t$re:tm.i§Ssion has been rightly by.ljj--oldlin'§"'thlat they are erroneous in law fornon con§itl"era'ti.ofi.. proper perspective.
22.__ T'he'~ l§eyVV'V~lset.re"~~*taeing the resignation of the "l"Appe'iliai~nt;A..jn..x§.Irit"lA'ppeal No.40?/2008 és corroborated by l"'d_'or;uT_ments:'ianal 'tegai evidence on record. The reliance pledge' appellants in Writ Appeal No.2}? 8:"
l°'~,.,_"2'11/209$'*:. on the tampered documents and the "tonV$id'eration by the State Election Commission is .'\\\,4l/prrqaneous and therefere the learned single Judge ~
-22..
25. For the aferesaid reasons, the writ appeals deveid of mefits are dismissed. No costs. % 1' UDQ1:
rsk