Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sharada vs The Commissioner The Karnataka State ... on 31 May, 2013
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY , 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION No.49335/2012 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN :
--------------
Smt SHARADA
W/O Sri KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE- 560 062. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri A. CHANDRA CHUD, ADV.)
AND :
---------
1.THE COMMISSIONER
THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, CUBBON PARK,
BANGALORE-1
2.THE RETURNING OFFICER
AGARA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 560062.
2
3.SRI NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE CHINNAVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560062.
4.SMT SHANTHAMMA
W/O CHINNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE,
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560062.
5.SRI C DASAPPA
S/OALTE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560062.
6.SRI RANGARAMU
S/O RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE,
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560062
7.SRI VENKTARAJU
S/O ABBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
3
RESIDING AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560062.
8.SRI V SOMANNA
S/O VENKATARAMANAPOPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AGARA VILLAGE,
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560062
9.SRI NAGARAJA
S/O ADIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVAGRAMA VILLAE,
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560062
10.SRI UMASHANKAR
S/O SRI.PUTTAKEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE,
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560062
11.SRI G RAJESH
S/O GOPAL KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGD ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560062
4
12.SMT LAKSHMIBAI
W/O LAKSHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SALADODDI VILLAGE,
TATAGUNI POST,KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560062
13.SMT SUSHEELA
W/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVAGRAMA VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560062
14.SMT MUNIRATHNA
W/O SATHYANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
TATAGUNI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560062.
.. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
Sri.V. VISHWANATH , ADV., FOR C/R3
R4, R6-R12, R14 ARE SERVED
R5, R13 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A
PRAYER TO QUASH THE JUDGEMENT DT.17.10.12, PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE PRL-II CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL
DIST. AT BANGALORE IN ELE.PET.NO.1/10 AT ANN-F
ALONG WITH THE LETTER DT.26.11.12, ISSUED BY THE
5
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DIST. BY
VIRTUE OF THE JUDGEMENT DT.17.1.12 AT ANN-G.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGAMOHAN DAS, J
PASSED THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.10.2012 in E.P.No.1/2010 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District.
2. Petitioner and respondent no.3 to 14 contested the elections to the post of Member of Gram Panchayath from Ward No.4 of B.M.Kaval Village, Agara Village Panchayath, Bangalore South Taluk held on 08.05.2010. On 17.05.2010 the counting of votes was held and petitioner was declared elected. The third respondent herein raised an election dispute in E.P.No.1/2010 before the trial Court on the ground that invalid votes are counted in favour of the petitioner and valid votes in favour of the third respondent 6 was rejected. After completion of pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:
1. ©. JA. PÁªÀ®Ä UÁæªÀÄzÀ 4£Éà ªÀÄvÀUÀmÉÖUÉ £Àqz É À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥lÖAvÉ 3£Éà ¥ÀævÀåfðzÁgÀg£À ÀÄß '«d¬Ä' JAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 15.10.2010 gÀAzÀÄ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀævÀåfðzÁgÀgÀÄ WÉÀÆö¹zÀÝÀ DzÉñÀ ¯ÉÉÀÆÃ¥À¢AzÀ PÀÆrzÀÄÝ C£ÀÆfðvÀUÉÀƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉ ?
2. F CfðAiÀÄ°è PÉýzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀª£À ÀÄß ¥ÀqAÉ iÀÄ®Ä CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ CºÀðgÉ ?
3. K£ÀÄ CzÉñÀ ?
3. Before the trial Court petitioner examined three witnesses as RW.1 to RW.3 and has not produced any documents. The third respondent examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The trial Court ordered for recounting of the ballot papers and secured a report. By considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court passed the impugned order holding that the valid votes in favour of third respondent was illegally rejected and invalid votes were illegally counted in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the trial Court set-aside the election 7 of petitioner and declared the third respondent as elected. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner is before this court.
4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contends that the trial Court ordered for recounting of ballot papers without any valid reason. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner at time of recounting of ballot papers. Therefore, the report of recounting of ballot papers ought to be rejected. I decline to accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the order sheet specifies that after service of notice, petitioner remained absent before the trial Court and she was placed exparte vide order dated 06.08.2010. Thereafter the trial Court examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. Subsequently the trial Court vide order dated 19.10.2010 ordered appointing a court commissioner for recounting of ballot papers and to submit a report. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner submitted a report of recounting of ballot papers on 8 28.10.2010. Later the petitioner entered appearance before the trial court and contested the proceedings. Petitioner failed to avail the opportunity provided by the trial Court and remained exparte. Now it is not open for the petitioner to contend that she did not had an opportunity at the time of recounting of ballot papers.
6. Secondly, it is contended that on 17.05.2010 when the first counting of ballot papers was held the third respondent was present and he did not raise any objection. It is only after the result were declared the third respondent gave a representation requesting for recounting of the votes and the same was rightly rejected by the Returning Officer. The third respondent who kept silent at the time of counting of the ballot papers is not entitled to file an election petition on the ground that there is improper counting of invalid votes. The trial Court has considered this argument and answered stating that immediately after results were declared the petitioner raised objection for recounting of ballot papers. The third respondent contends that he had raised objection during the course of counting of votes and the same was not considered by the 9 Returning Officer. Immediately, after the results were declared the third respondent gave a representation for recounting and the same was rejected. Without further loss of time the third respondent landed before the court in an election petition. In these circumstances, I decline to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that third respondent has no right to question the election results.
7. Thirdly, it is contended that at the time of initial counting it is stated that petitioner secured 596 votes and third respondent secured 595 votes. In the recounting it is stated that petitioner secured 589 votes and third respondent secured 590 votes. Thus prima-facie there is missing of ballot papers at the time of recounting. I decline to accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The report of recounting the ballot papers specifies in detail the number of valid votes secured by the petitioner and the third respondent. It further specifies the number of invalid votes. It also specifies the illegal counting of number of invalid ballot papers in favour of the petitioner and illegal rejection of valid votes in 10 favour of respondent No.3. From this material on record it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was missing of ballot papers.
8. Fourthly, it is contended that the trial Court in the impugned order had not specified the number of invalid votes counted in favour of petitioner and as such the impugned order is bad in law. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this court in Vimalavva alias Vinodavva vs. Smt.Yellawwa [AIR 2003 Kar.313]. In the instant case the report relating to the recounting of ballot papers specifies the details relating to the number of valid votes secured by each candidate, number of invalid votes, number of invalid votes illegally counted in favour of the petitioner and number of valid votes excluded from counting. The trial Court accepted this report. With regard to the factual figures specified in the report, petitioner had not filed any objections. In the circumstances, the law declared by this court in the judgment referred to above has no application to the 11 facts of the present case. Accordingly, I reject this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and the same is supported by evidence on record. I find no illegality or error in the impugned order. Accordingly the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
DKB.