Karnataka High Court
Ashraf vs The Returning Officer on 18 February, 2014
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
WRIT PETITION Nos.6162 - 6165 OF 2014 (CS)
BETWEEN:
1. ASHRAF
S/O ABBAS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT PERIYADKA HOUSE,
SAVANOOR POST & VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574202
2. SULAIMAN P.
S/O ESUBU
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT PALLATHAMOOLE HOUSE,
SAVANOOR POST AND VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574202
3. ISMAIL K.S.
S/O ABDULLA BEARY
AGED ABOUT 60 YERS
R/AT KURTHALA HOUSE
SAVANOOR POST AND VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574202
4. MADHAVA
S/O HUKRA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NADU MANE HOUSE,
2
PUNCHAPADY VILLAGE AND POST,
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574202.
.. PETITIONERS
(By Sri B LATHIF, ADV.)
AND
1. THE RETURNING OFFICER
AND CO-OPERATIVE
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
SAVANOOR PRIMARY
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
SAVANOOR VILLAGE & POST,
PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574202
2. SAVANOOR PRIMARY
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
SAVANOOR VILLAGE & POST,
PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT
-574202, BY ITS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01.
.. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri T L KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 & 3, Sri M
NAGAPRASANNA, ADV. FOR R2, Sri K CHANDRASHEKAR
ACHAR, ADV. FOR IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN IA
I/14)
***
3
THESE W.PS ARE FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF REJECTION OF NOMINATION OF
THE PETITIONERS NO.1,2,3 & 4 BEARING ORDER
NO.NIL DT. NIL PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-G,H,J &
K RESPECTIVELY AND FURTHER GIVE DIRECTIONS TO
THE R-1 PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CONTEST IN THE
ELECTION WHICH WILL BE HELD ON 9.2.2014 TO
ABOVE SOCIETY TO THE POST OF DIRECTORS BY
ACCEPTING THE NOMINATIONS BY PUBLISHING THEIR
NAMES IN THE BALLOT PAPERS.
THESE W.Ps COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are the Members of the respondent No.2 - Savanoor Primary Agricultural Credit Co- Operative Society Limited, Savanur, Puttur Taluk, D.K. District. Elections to the post of Directors to the said Society was proposed to be held and calendar of events in this regard was published on 14.01.2014. Election was proposed to be held on 09.02.2014. All the four petitioners filed their nominations. Their nominations were rejected by the Returning Officer - respondent No.1 herein.
4
2. The nomination of petitioner No.1 - Ashraf is rejected on the ground that there is discrepancy in the serial number of the Proposer as mentioned in the nomination papers and the voters list. Nomination of petitioner No.2 -Sulaiman.P. and petitioner No.3 - Ismail have been rejected on the same grounds. Further, nomination papers of petitioner No.4 - Madhava has been rejected on the ground that he had only enclosed Xerox copy of the caste certificate and not the original. Petitioners have challenged the impugned orders rejecting their nomination making several allegations. They have contended that their nominations have been arbitrarily rejected though there were no defects in the nominations submitted by them.
3. In view of the serious allegations made, learned AGA was directed to secure records and keep respondent No.1 - Returning Officer present before the Court. Accordingly, he was present before court along with records. After perusing the nomination papers, voters list and the reasons assigned for rejection of the 5 nominations, this court having found that the nomination papers filed by the petitioners were rejected on baseless and insignificant grounds, contrary to the provisions of Rule 14 to the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, passed interim order of stay of elections scheduled to be held on 09.02.2014 of the Managing Committee of respondent No.2 - Society. The matter was adjourned with a direction to the Returning Officer to file an affidavit. Today, the respondent No.1 - Returning Officer is present and an affidavit is filed enclosing several documents.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the original records.
5. On perusal of the records, I find that rejection of nomination papers of the petitioners is totally arbitrary and illegal and is not in accordance with Rule 14(b) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, particularly, the proviso appended thereto to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14(b) of the Act. The second proviso to sub- 6 Rule(2) of Rule 14(b) makes it clear that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination papers on ground of any defect which is not of substantial character.
6. On careful perusal of the original nomination papers submitted and the endorsement issued by the Returning Officer assigning reasons for rejection, I find that the grounds assigned for rejection are baseless apart from not forming substantial grounds. It is also to be noticed that some of the nomination papers show over writing in the serial number of the Proposer as found in the voters list. For instance, in the case of petitioner No.2 - Sulaiman, his Membership number was written as '2937' in the nomination form, but number '3' is corrected by over writing and making it look as '8' and thereby to appear as '2987'. Similarly, in the case of petitioner No.3-Ismail the over writing of number '3420' as '3429' can be seen. Same type of over writing has been done in the case of petitioner No.1 - Ashraf also. 7
7. In so far as petitioner No.4 - Madhava is concerned, he has produced Xerox copy of the caste certificate. His grievance is that there was no opportunity to produce the original as he wanted to produce the original at the time of scrutiny. He has produced the original for perusal of the court. This certificate has been issued on 28.11.2013 by the Tahsilar, Kadaba, D.K.District. Therefore, it is clear that this petitioner intended to produce the original of the caste certificate at the time of scrutiny and was not given an opportunity to place the same for perusal of the Returning Officer.
8. Therefore, it is clear that the Returning Officer has not taken adequate care to ensure that third party does not get access to the nomination papers to include in interpolation. Even otherwise, the Returning Officer ought to have exercised his diligence and should not have rejected the nominations on such frivolous grounds as long as the Proposers name is found in the voters list. The democratic process cannot be sabotaged 8 by permitting such illegalities, which are done by vested interests. Officials can not play in to the hands of such vested interests who are trying to defeat the process of free and fair elections.
9. In any event as already observed above reasons for rejection assigned are not in conformity with the Rules. Therefore, the impugned orders rejecting the nominations of petitioners have to be characterized as illegal and arbitrary. Hence, petitioners are entitled to succeed.
10. These writ petitions are accordingly allowed. Impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.1 - Returning Officer rejecting the nominations of the petitioners vide Ann. G, H, J and K are set aside. The respondent No.1 - Returning Officer is directed to continue the process of elections from the stage it was interrupted by properly scrutinizing the nomination papers strictly in conformity with Rule 14(b) of the Rules and also in the light of the observations made above. 9 The elections shall be held expeditiously by rescheduling the further dates and from the stage of scrutiny of the nomination papers.
In the light of the order passed above, question of allowing the impleading applicant to come on record, does not arise. The application is accordingly rejected as having become unnecessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE VK