Karnataka High Court
Smt K K Banu vs Smt R Bhagirathy on 9 June, 2009
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 2866 (KAR)
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
-27 T§~I' E_«RETURNING OFFICER
IMDIKERI TALUK, COORG.
(I3y SMT: M c NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R2) (
at THE men comm' or é " x
mama THIS TI-IE 9th nA1?».:9F§'_'J£i1§E.f2;O§}éI "
um xzozrnuz ma. _vA1§3'7.BDY
wnrr 1=E*rI'rmx £138-ELE)
sMrKKBAN1.3'--... - _
D/C) LATE KUNHI RAM'Ar«:.. , .
AGE} 42 YEARS " ,?
R/O KADA<<3AI:);'-;s,:l:?vILIA;ss:";I+:.Arar> POST
MADIKERI11*ALm{,"c':Q<)RG.'«.._ -- '
. . . PETITIONER
(By an: K M r§m'rARA;j,-_A:),V'«..%'L~~)
1 R.V'B.HPsGIR£iTHY
'AGED 3'1f;'¥13:2aRs
W50 LA'I'E' jRAJU
L we KADAGADALU VILLAGE AND POST
MADIKERI TALUK, COORG.
"»KADAGADALU GRAM PANCHAYATH ELECTION
RESPONDENTS
'Bharathiya Hindu Malayan' and that the words Tiya' was erased in the extract Ex.C-1 (a). Ex.C-2(a) to be another sehooi record, as testified "
is that the caste of the declared as 'Bharathjya Hindu Nayar-M:§leiVyda'ii.f examination admits that _fl1e 'de'e.1.ared belongs to 'Bharathiya Nayér}_M3iay$ilj' as recorded in the e_ :4._a¥1:c£e.t11eVVe.diVi1ission regster.
I The of PW-2 the Disirict Officer, B:-iekvgv-a_t11--. testjfies that the caste is.' the other backward the caste 'Nayar' does not fall under community and noxmafly in the case of woman, the caste to which father would be considered as the caste to which belongs. So aiso PW-3, the Tahsildar who issued ' the caste certificate Ex"?-8 deposed that he did not H "Harijan', No clinching evidence was adduced to establish that the petitioner E H' .. V 'He1eya(Harijana)' caste. in fact, Ex.R--2 issued by the School arid l the Transfer Certificate {meal candidate belong to 'I~IiI1du--'M§ii.ayali."-~ Tillie spoken to by CW1, rise iilviéidegadalu Higher Prim' my School-esilwefl and R-3 the and the certified copy "clearly disclose that the petitioner 'iliindu Malayali.' No exception . i Etiéikegeto tliewiiildings, reasons and conclusions
- Election Tribunal.
9.. There is considerable force in the submission of lithe learned counsel for the petitioner that the A' Election Tribunal fell in error in declaring' the election petitioner as duly elected from the Closebem bi IE Reserved Constituency to Kadagadaiiijid H Panchayath, Kodagu District.
10. Section 20 of tlde Act {he purpose reads thus: ' V d ' "Grounds on whicflh a than the to have been elt3'_¢21.f:i'd' i' Qerfiofi filed an election: djédditzviévaxi to calling in qugtétiiiii' thé'._'"x*é1firned candidate, C}a.{II1S"'a' ih§t*--hc "himself or any other canddidafcdd has. Vb"edén,_4d1§ljrV.'.elccted and the (Civil .3_--.:dge (.ii:a;m- Biviéidiij) is ofopi11ion~
--. fact the petitioner or such other 1 vv.:v4:"'¢v.§uidid:ate received a majority of the _ votes; or but for {he votes obtained by the V = returned candidate by corrupt practices the psetitioner or such other candtdatt would have obtained a majority of the valid votes;
the (Civil Judge(.Junior. E)v11)) shall after declaring the elecfion of the returned candidate to be void declare the: petitiimer or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have bu elected.
(:2) The decision the V' .
Judge[Junior.Dvn))s}:1all A V H. Sec.10} '-the of Peoples Act, 1951 read t.nue:oo__f_eeeV ' b other than the ;?t-gtiifiied4'Cé§nEii:{ate'v.;11ay be declared to' 'h;«;iire--
has lodged a petition nee,' - additioi: . ealling in question the electionu" the' retufrxed candidate, claimed a ._i iie(;let1e1ion he himself or any other % _Vcan:dé{ia§e'~--.bas been duly elected and the High .143 rji"-.c§pi11_1o:1 --
(ej fact the petitioner or such other ..ee,n;::ie1ate received a majority of the vaiid Votes; or H (b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practice the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes, the High Court shall, after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void declare the M yefifioncr or such other candidate, as th-.§fbasg§"" '~ may be, to have been duly electcgi :2. Section 20 of the Act is'%%%pa§¥a * that of Sec. 101 of the Repfe.§€:ntatfion._§f Act, 1951 and tI1ereforey'the by the Courts under Sec. 101'-' of Peoples Act 1;o:=_Se::.
1»3;~~- """Vv.'E\'ii:ddy vs. Konappa Rudrapvpa " ' §I.1other, reported in AIR 1969 SC ._ Ape)?' Court having regard to the Qf sec; v}--£1}«'of the Representation of Peoples . V ' A ~ _ 'A . Zglfhen there are only two contesting V .4 cgfi§1id:$;tes, and one of them is under a AA , statfitory disqualification, Votes cast in % = favour of the disqualified candidates may be regarded as thrown away, irrespective of whether the voters who voted for him were aware of the disquaiificatien and no fresh poll is necessary. This is not to say that M In the result, the Writ petition is allowed " ~ V. The order impugned in so far as .i__t the 131: respondent election the membership of thg ..«--VV:P§%ncif1ayath from the Closebemv '4""~V%"é"\\"*17,"$"tituez1C3/, is quashed.
csg