Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Appellants are unsuccessful petitioners before the learned Single Judge who has dismissed their petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 20.02.2015 and for a further direction to respondents to hold fresh election to the Managing Committee of Shri Gavisiddeshwar Urban Co- operative Bank Niyamith, Koppal.

2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per their status in the writ petition.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, Petitioners claim to be eligible Members of Shri Gavisiddeshwar Urban Co-operative Bank Niyamith, Koppal (hereinafter referred to as 'bank' for short) to contest for the post of a Managing Committee of the Bank. Calendar of events was published on 30.01.2015, prescribing date of filing of nominations as 06.02.2015 and the date of election as 14.02.2015. Elections were held in Kuvempu Primary and Secondary School, Koppal. Polling was peaceful. However, there was some commotion at the time of counting of votes. When the counting of second ballot box was completed, it was observed by Returning Officer that 16 ballot papers were missing and therefore, counting was stopped and the remaining boxes were not opened. On 15.02.2015, the Returning Officer informed about the missing ballot papers to the 1st respondent and sought further directions. One of the candidates requested the 3rd respondent, the Returning Officer to hold fresh elections by submitting a representation dated 16.02.2015 which did not evoke any response and on the other hand, the Secretary of the Karnataka State Co-operative Election Commission (1st respondent) passed an order dated 20.02.2015, directing the 3rd respondent to conduct re-poll in respect of booth No.2. The 3rd respondent appears to have lodged a police complaint, complaining about the theft and destruction of ballot papers. The candidates also desired to register a complaint with the Police and as the Police did not entertain, a private complaint has been lodged in the Court of JMFC, Koppal which is pending consideration.

11. In the backdrop of the facts narrated herein above and the submissions of the learned counsel, following questions arise for our consideration:

"(i) Whether provision of Rule viz., Rule 14I or Rule 14J is correctly invoked and if not, does the same vitiate the issuance of impugned order?

(ii) Whether the statute requires grant of personal hearing to the appellants?

12. The undisputed factual matrices in these cases are that polling was peaceful and at the time of counting, there was some commotion which resulted in loss of 16 ballot papers. Election Commission has directed re-poll for booth No.2. To a query by the Court, learned counsel for the parties submitted that in each ballot a voter has to vote for 13 candidates under various categories and that there are in all 20178 voters and for the sake of convenience, they have been distributed in 5 booths. It is noticed that Rule 14I refers to fresh poll in case of destruction of ballot boxes and a situation where a ballot/s used at the polling station are unlawfully taken out of the custody of the Presiding Officer. 14J refers to adjournment of poll or countermanding of election on the ground of booth capturing. It is useful to extract both the provisions which read as follows:

14. Perusal of the order passed by the Commission reveals that after referring to the incident of loss of 16 ballot papers and the complaint filed by the Returning Officer and other circumstances, Commission has ordered re-poll in booth No.2. The appellants are right in contending that the facts of the case attracted invocation of Rule 14J, inasmuch as explanation (d) to Rule 14J refers to "booth capturing". However, the Election Commission has directed for re-polling in booth No.2 which is traceable to Rule 14I. It is trite law that, substance must be gathered by the text of the subject and not by the provision of law invoked in a particular situation.

17. In the given set of facts, if the hyper technical argument on behalf of the appellants with regard to invoking a wrong provision of law, is accepted and the impugned order is held bad in law, the consequences which may flow there from will compel the respondents to reconsider the issue all over again. Insofar as the compliance with regard to obtaining a report or certificate by the Police or Tahasildar is concerned, the same is not possible at this point of time. Election being heart and soul in a democratic system, it is essential to keep the process on going and in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is most desirable in the interest of the Institution as also that of candidates to complete the process of election which will result in bringing the elected body in place as early as possible. Article 226 being a discretionary relief, we refrain to exercise the same in this case and thereby confirm the order of learned Single Judge. In our considered view, best interest of all concerned will be served by directing the respondents to count the ballots polled and declare the results. It is submitted at the bar that re-polling has been held in booth No.2 and counting of ballots polled in booth No.1 is complete. Counting is not undertaken for booth No.2 as per the interim order dated 27.02.2015.