Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mohammed Shafeeq S/O Hussainsab ... vs The State Election Commission & Ors on 5 March, 2013
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D V Shylendra Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2013
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Writ Petition No.100675 of 2013 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED SHAFEEQ
S/O HUSSAINSAB
MAHABARI, AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O DHARBAR GALLI,
SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, BIJAPUR-586101.
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI G G CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
BANGALORE BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIJAPUR DISTRICT: BIJAPUR.
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER
BIJAPUR CITY MUNICIPALITY ELECTION
WARD NO.30, BIJAPUR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANAVENDRA REDDY, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
-2-
CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2013
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO.NIL, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-C AND ORDER DATED 25.2.2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN NO.NIL, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO
CONTEST THE ELECTION FROM WARD NO.30 OF CMC BIJAPUR
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The writ petitioner complains that though he has filed four sets of nomination papers, two sets have been wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer, has nevertheless by not scrutinizing the other nomination papers filed by him has presumed that he is not a contesting candidate and only other candidate whose nomination papers has been accepted is likely to be declared as elected uncontested.
-3-
2. Therefore, the present writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the Returning Officer to accept the nomination papers of the petitioner and to conduct the elections.
3. Sri G G Chagashetti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged several grounds that the rejection is not proper and acceptance is not communicated and on the other hand, it is a deemed rejection and that is how the Returning officer has proceeded; that it is a clear case of acting in violation of the Rules and Regulations for conducting elections and a direction to Returning Officer to accept the nomination papers and permit the petitioner also to participate in the election process will not amount to interference with the election process; that this is not a situation where, by granting an interim order, the election process will be affected; that therefore, the writ petition may be -4- entertained notwithstanding the bar under the Constitution.
4. Sri Manavendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondents 2 and 3 submits that though the submission of Sri Chagashetti learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is quite attractive and perhaps could have been examined even in writ jurisdiction, but for the bar created under the Constitution, this writ petition also could not be entertained but liberty reserved to the petitioner to work out his rights and remedies in accordance with law.
5. If, as submitted by Sri Chagashetti learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Returning Officer has acted in a malafide and arbitrary manner and has colluded with another candidate for ensuring his success without any challenge by rival candidates, it is a matter which can be examined by Courts but not before the election process is over, as it does amount to -5- interference with the election process, if any interim order is ordered by this court at this stage.
6. It is for this reason writ jurisdiction is not exercised. Therefore, the petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the petitioner before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk