(1)
¨sÁUÀ 4
PÉÃAzÀæzÀ «zsÉÃAiÀÄPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀÅUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥Àj²Ã®£Á ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ,
PÉÃAzÀæzÀ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzsÁåzÉñÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ
¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ±Á¸À£À§zÀÞ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±Á¸À£À§zÀÞ DzÉñÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
gÁµÀÖç¥ÀwAiÀĪÀjAzÀ gÀavÀªÁV gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀªÀjAzÀ
¥ÀÄ£ÀB ¥ÀæPÀlªÁzÀ DzÉñÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
NOTIFICATION
Dated: 17th November, 20I5, 26 Kartika, 1937. (Saka).
No. 82/KT-LA/07/2013 - In pursuance of section 106 (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the
Election Commission hereby publishes the order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 01-07-2015 in Election Petition No. 7 of 2013.
By Order,
TAPAS KUMAR
SR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
ELECTION PETITION NO.07 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SRI.NEMARAJANAIK K
S/O KASHYANAIK
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT 260, WEST WING GOUDARA VONI
MARIYAMMANAHALLI THANDA
MARIYAMMANAHALLI
HOSPET TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT 583 222 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTHA H M, ADV.)
¸ÀA¥ÀÄl 151
Volume 151
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ, ¥sɧæªÀj 4, 2016 (ªÀiÁWÀ 15, ±ÀPÀ ªÀµÀð 1937)
Bengaluru, Thursday, February 4, 2016 (Magha 15, Shaka Varsha 1937)
¸ÀAaPÉ 5
Issue 5
2
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvÀæ, UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ, ¥sɧæªÀj 4, 2016
¨sÁUÀ 4
AND:
1. SRI BHEEMANAIK LBP
S/O L B SAMYA NAIK
MAJOR
RESIDING BEHIND APMC,
NEAR VISHWA BHARATHI SCHOOL
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI
2. SRI MARENNA L
S/O LATE LALEPPA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.LIG 71
KHB COLONY
NETAJI NAGAR, NEAR OPD. BELLARY
3. SRI DODDA RAMANNA
S/O P HANUMANTAPPA
MAJOR
MALLANAYAKANA HALLI
KOTTUR POST
KUDLIGI TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT
4. SRI EKAMBRESH NAIK
S/O DURGYA NAIK
MAJOR
DOOR NO.352
ANJANEYA SWAMI TEMPLE AREA
MARIYAMMANAHALLI THANDA
HOSPET TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT
5. SRI MOHAN DASARI
S/O D BHAGAVANTAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO.28
RAMANAGARA
H B HALLI
BELLARY DISTRICT
6. SRI RAVIKUMAR V
S/O V GIRIVAPPA
MAJOR
OLD H B HALLI
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI
BELLARY
7. KUM MANASVI
D/O V H HANUMANTAPA
MAJOR
32, 1ST B MAIN BANDI
MATA BADAVANE
KENGERI UPANAGARA
BENGALURU
8. SRI NAGARAJA V
S/O MANJAMMA
MAJOR
GAJAPURA POST
KUDALGI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT
¨sÁUÀ 4
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvÀæ, UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ, ¥sɧæªÀj 4, 2016
3
9. SRI AROGYA SWAMY B
S/O BALARAJU
MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO.48
ARDINENS ROAD, FORT
BELLARY DISTRICT
10. SRI BHEEMAPPA POOJARA
S/O HANUMANTAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDING NEAR MARUTHI GARADIMANE
RAMANAGARA
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI
BELLARY DISTRICT
11. SRI V PAVANA KUMAR
S/O V GOVINDA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT WARD NO.8
DOOR NO.202 A
BENGALURU ROAD
PATAKANDAKAM STREET
BELLARY
12. SRI H GOPALA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT MALIYAPPA
4TH WARD
A MARIYYAMMANAHALLI
HOSPET TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT
13. KOTRESHAPPA M
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT K AYYANAHALLI
KUDLIGI TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAGADISH, SR. ADV. FOR SRI.V JAVAHAR BABU, ADV.
FOR R1 )
THIS ELECTION PETITION IS FILED U/SS 81,83 & 100 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951
READ WITH RULE 4 OF THE ELECTION PETITION PROCEDURE RULES KARNATAKA 1967, PRAYING TO A) DECLARE THE
ELECTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 (RETURNED CANDIDATE) AS VOID ON THE GROUND OF IMPROPER RECEPTION,
REFUSAL OR REJECTION OF ANY VOTE OR THE RECEIPT OF ANY VOTE WHICH IS VOID AND FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OR OF THIS ACT OR OF ANY RULES OR ORDER MADE UNDER THIS ACT AS THE
SAME FALLS UNDER SECTION 100(1)(D)(III) AND SECTION 100(1)(D)(IV) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951; B)
FURTHER, DECLARE THE PETITIONER AS HAVING BEEN ELECTED TO THE HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI CONSTITUENCY
RESERVED FOR SC CANDIDATE ; C) FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING COST OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS ELECTION PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS ON IA NO.1/2015 THIS DAY
AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.06.2015, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this election petition u/s 81, 83 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 r/w Rule 4 of
Election Petition Procedure Rules Karnataka, 1967, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act' and ‘the Rules' respectively. The petitioner has
prayed for declaring the election of Respondent No.1 as void on the ground of improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the
4
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvÀæ, UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ, ¥sɧæªÀj 4, 2016
¨sÁUÀ 4
receipt of any vote which is void and for non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act and rules or order made under
this Act as the same falls u/s 100(1)(d)(iii) and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act and to declare the petitioner as the returned
candidate.
2. The facts to be stated in brief are that petitioner is a resident of Mariyammanahalli Thanda, Hospet, Bellary District belongs
to SC. He was also member of the Legislative Assembly from the same constituency from 2008-13. He contested from the same
constituency to the State Assembly to the election held on 5.5.2013 for which counting took place on 8.5.2013. The first respondent
secured 51972 votes as against petitioner securing 51847, the difference being 125. These voting figures are not correct. There is
discrepancy between the number of votes polled and number of votes counted. The returning officer has taken into account votes which
were not polled at all. He has given instances of discrepancy in respect of Mutaganahalli, Kogalli, Jagatageri polling stations and claims
21 votes were excess votes as against the votes polled there. It is stated, it is quite possible that from the remaining 211 polling stations
even if there is difference of 1 vote per each polling station it would make a marked difference in the votes polled and votes counted.
3. It is further stated that apart from the discrepancy in the counting votes and its calculation in the counting votes and its
calculation, there is a marked difference between number of postal ballots supplied to voters on election duty and the postal ballot
papers that were received. The Returning Officer has received only 897 postal ballot votes as against 1017 issued. The grounds on
which the votes were rejected were not revealed to the candidate or their counting agents. The petitioner stated, because of loud noise
in the counting hall and also considerable distance between the counting clerk and the supervisor, report could not be heard properly.
The counting hall was over crowded by the candidate, their counting agents and other observers. It is claimed, the result of the election
has materially affected by the above irregularity.
4. The respondent No.1 filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the election petition. It is stated, election
commission has conducted the election in a fair and impartial manner. The counting process was also conducted in accordance with the
procedure prescribed as per the Election Commission Rules. The votes polled and votes counted are one and the same. The cursory
glance at the election petition neither discloses any cause of action nor the mandatory compliance of the requirements in the pleadings
and the documents in support of the Election Petition. Election petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.
5. The first respondent filed application u/s 87 of the Act r/w Order VI Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to strike out
the pleadings in the election petition, which are unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious. It is sworn to in the affidavit that after striking out
such pleadings, no cause of action survives and accordingly petition itself to be dismissed. It is stated, the allegations made in Paras 8
to 11 and 14 to 18 relate to discrepancy in number of votes polled and counted and that the Returning Officer has taken into account the
votes which were not polled. The said statements are vague and do not disclose cause of action.
6. At paragraphs 23 to 25 the grounds in support of the said allegations are also equally vague and do not disclose the cause
of action. Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act is not applicable to the case on hand. The first respondent seeks to strike out the pleadings of
paragraphs No.8 to 10 regarding discrepancy in counting of votes, excess votes counted i.e., 21 votes and Returning Officer taking into
account the invalid votes. So also the averments made in Para-11 regarding discrepancy in declaring the result of the election, para-14
regarding not furnishing certified copies. In W P No.221160/2014 (GM-KEB) DD 15.6.2004 this court directed to furnish the documents
in two days but the petitioner has utterly failed to produce certified copy of the said order.
7. As regards para-15 relating to counting of only 897 postal ballot votes as against issuance of 1017 ballot papers and the
Returning Officer rejected 40 votes out of 897 votes, Para-16 relating to oral report of the figures by the counting clerk to the supervisors
could not be recorded immediately by the supervisor because of loud noise in the counting hall etc., Para-17 relating to counting clerks
counted the second and third round even before the results of first round and hence lot of confusion was created, paragraphs 23, 24 &
25 and para-18 relating to election being materially affected are all frivolous, vexatious and bereft of material facts. It is stated that there
is no foundation laid nor there is any pleading nor any ground made out to show that election is materially affected. Without mentioning
all necessary material facts which afford basis for the grievance and without stating how they affect the process of counting, the said
pleadings cannot form foundation for filing the election petition. Hence the first respondent prays for allowing the application.
8. The above application is resisted by the petitioner by filing statement of objections reiterating the averments made in the
election petition and prays for rejection of the application.
9. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the first respondent on the application and learned counsel for the petitioner.
The point that arises for consideration is, whether the application IA No.1/2015 filed by the first respondent deserves to be allowed?
The said point is answered in favour of the first respondent for the following reasons.
10. The election petition is founded on the grounds of discrepancy in counting of votes i.e., excess counting of voters,
Returning Officer has counted the votes which were not polled and discrepancy in counting of postal ballot papers of voters who were
on election duty. It is stated, as against 1017 ballot papers issued, only 897 ballot papers were received and in that 40 votes were
rejected without assigning any reasons. As a next ground, it is averred that there was heavy crowd in the counting hall, unnecessary
people were gathered there, they could not hear the report from the counting clerks and that there was confusion created by the
counting clerks also in going to count 2nd and 3rd rounds without displaying the results of first round.
¨sÁUÀ 4
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvÀæ, UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ, ¥sɧæªÀj 4, 2016
5
11. The learned senior counsel for the first respondent has placed reliance on the following authorities and submitted to allow
the application and to dismiss the election petition summarily as there is no triable case made out by the petitioner.
(a)
Azhar Hussain vs., Rajiv Gandhi,reported in 1986(Supp) SCC 315 to contend that election petition could be
summarily dismissed for want of cause of action.
(b)
Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, (1987) (Supp) SCC 93 to contend that vague pleadings are fatal
to the election petition.
(c)
(Santosh Yadav vs., Narender Singh) (2002) 1 SCC 160 to contend that fate of the election petition not only of
parties before court but of entire constituency is at stake. Therefore, trial must be played out with open cards, not
like a game of chess or hide and seek. All material facts, from which appropriate inferences may be drawn, must
be set out in election petition and substantiated by cogent evidence before petitioner can succeed.
(d)
Ram Sukh vs., Dinesh Aggarwal, (2009) 10 SCC 541 to contend that material facts and full particulars are to be
furnished. They are facts which, if established, would give petitioner the relief asked for. However, what could be
said to be material facts would depend upon facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid
down.
(e)
Shri Jitendra Bahadur Singh vs., Shri Kirshna Behari & others, (1969) 2 SCC 433 to contend that allegations must
be supported by material facts.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following authorities and prays for rejection of the
application.
(a)
K Devanna Naik vs., S Pakkirappa & ors. Misc. Cvl.Nos.1360 & 1362/2011 in E PNo.23/2009 DD 12.7.2011,
Para-9 therein which reads as follows:
"9.....He further submitted that the wrong acceptance of nomination paper of Respondent No.2 would not
materially affect the result of the returned candidate, inasmuch as, all the votes polled in favour of Respondent
No.2 would have been polled in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot presume that all the votes
polled in favour of Respondents 1 & 2 would have been polled in his favour. Such submissions will have to be
considered at the time of disposal of the matter after full fledged trial. Evidence may be necessary to consider
such questions of fact. Hence, this court does not wish to strike off the pleadings in paragraphs-11 and 12 of the
election petition..."
(b)
Roop Lal Sathivs., Nachhattar Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1559 in which Para-41, relevant portion reads as follows:
"41.....The function of "particulars" under Rule 6 is quite different. They are not to be used in order to fill material
gaps in a demurrable statement of claim-gaps which ought to have been filled by appropriate statements of the
various material facts which together constitute the plaintiff's cause of action. The use of particulars is intended
to meet a further and quite separate requirement of pleading, imposed in fairness and justice to the defendant.
Their function is to fill in the picture of the plaintiff's cause of action with information sufficiently detailed to put
the defendant on his guard as to the case he has to meet and to enable him to prepare for trial"
Therefore, it is submitted, what is pleaded in the election petition is in accordance with the requirement of law and does not
warrant striking of any of the pleadings as sought for the application.
13. The petitioner has stated in the election petition that in respect of three polling stations namely, Mutaganahalli, Kogalli,
Jagatageri, 21 excess voters were counted in favour of the first respondent. The material facts in support of the said pleadings is not
pleaded rendering the said pleading as vague as it could be. Further it is stated in Para-9 of the petition that "it is quite possible that
from the remaining 211 polling stations even if there is difference of 1 vote per each polling station it would make a marked difference in
the votes polled and votes counted". This is based on presumption and assumption of the petitioner without being definite about the
same, which cannot be the basis to proceed with trial of the case. Further the said 21 votes which are said to have been counted in
favour of the first respondent, the material facts are not there to show that they are counted in favour of the first respondent only.
14. The postal ballot papers against issuance of 1017 ballot papers, only 897 papers were received in which 40 votes have
been rejected without mentioning the reason. It is not the case of the petitioner that those rejected votes are voted in favour of the
petitioner, which has materially affected the election results.
15. It is also the basis of the election petition that in the counting place there was commotion and lot number of people
assembled and the agents were not in a position to hear properly the counting report by the counting staff. The petitioner has not at all
made the Returning Officer a party to the Election Petition. This grievance of the petitioner cannot be answered by the respondents,
who are the contestants in the election. Therefore, the petitioner is very casual and not serious about the case he wants to make and
materials required to meet that case.
6
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvÀæ, UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ, ¥sɧæªÀj 4, 2016
¨sÁUÀ 4
16. The material facts are facts upon which the petitioner's cause of action lies or the respondent's defence depends. In other
words, material facts means the entire bundle of facts, which would constitute a complete cause of action and these must be concisely
stated in the election petition. It is also true that no rule of universal application can be applied in finding out whether the statements of
fact made in the election petition amount to material facts or not. If there are more than one allegations and the material facts are
sufficient with regards to one of such allegations, the petition is maintainable and cannot be thrown out.
17. The distinction between material facts and particulars was brought out in Manubhai Mondial Amersey v. Popat Lal Manilal
Joshi, (1969) 1 SCC 372. It was held that the settled principle of law, as it emerged from numerous decisions of the Supreme Court in
regard to the question as what exactly was the content of expression "Material Facts and Particulars" which the election petitioner
should incorporate in petition by virtue of Section 83(1) of the Act is that material facts are facts which if established would give the
election petitioner the relief asked for.
18. "Particulars" are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party. The functions of particulars is to present as full a
picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to
meet. There may be some overlapping between material facts and particulars but the two are quite distinct. `Particulars' give distinctive
touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative.
19. Keeping these cardinal principles so as to the facts to be stated by way of material facts and particulars, if the case of the
petitioner is to be examined, the petition averments lack "material facts" and "particulars". Even if the case pleaded by the petitioner
assumed to be true that 21 votes are excess counted and 41 votes are illegally rejected and in respect of other counting stations, no
particulars are furnished, petitioner is not likely to get the reliefs sought for in the election petition. The election petition cannot be
directed to fish out the evidence. In that view of the matter, the election petition lacks material facts and also the particulars and the
petitioner has failed to make out a triable case. The pleadings in paragaraphs-8, 9, 10, 11,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24 & 25 are liable to be
struck out for want of material facts and particulars, and as a consequence there remains nothing to constitute cause of action for the
election petition.
In the circumstances, the application I A No.1 /2015 is allowed. The pleadings in paragraphs-8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
23,24 & 25 are struck off and as a consequence there remains no cause of action to put the election petition for trial. Accordingly,
election petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
V. RAGHAVENDRA
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer
(Training & Election Expenditure)
O/o the Chief Electoral Officer,
D.P.A.R. (Elections) Karnataka,
Nirvachana Nilaya, Sheshadri Road,
Bengaluru-560001
P.R. 46
SC-100
By Order,
TAPAS KUMAR
SR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
NOTIFICATION
Dated: 16th November, 20I5, 25 Kartika, 1937 (Saka).
No. 82/KT-LA/08/2013 - In pursuance of section 106 (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the
Election Commission hereby publishes the order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 23-05-2015 in Election Petition No. 8 of 2013.
By Order,
TAPAS KUMAR
SR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
¨sÁUÀ 4
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvÀæ, UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ, ¥sɧæªÀj 4, 2016
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY,
ELECTION PETITION NO.8/2013
BETWEEN:
S SUDHAKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SIDDAPPA
R/ AT NANDINI NILAYA
#90, CHANNAMUMBAPURA
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT -577 201
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LEELA'P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI A K SUBBAIAH)
AND
1. THE RETURNING OFFICER
NO.111 SHIMOGA RURAL CONSTUTUENCY
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577201
2. SMT. SHARADA POORYANAIK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
W/O POORYANAIK ASHIRWADA, 2ND CROSS
NEAR WATER TANK, SAVALANGA ROAD
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA 577 201
3. G BASAVANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
S/O G THIMMAPPA
135, HUDKO COLONY KALLAHALLI,
VINOBANAGARA
SHIVAMOGGA -577204
4. K G KUMARA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O GANGAPPA
R/ AT NO.89, SRI GOWRl KALLAHALLI,
VINOBANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA -577204
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUBRAMANAYA R.., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 AND R3 ARE PLACED EXPARTE)
THIS ELECTION PETITION IS PRESENTED U/Ss 81 & 83 OF THS REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 19)1 READ
WITH RULE 4 OF THE ELECTION PETITION PROCEDURE RULES, 1967, KARNATAKA, BY ONE SRI S.SUDHAKAR, PETITIONER
'ELECTOR', ALONG WITH HIS COUNSEL SMT LEELA P DEVADIGA, CHALLENGING THE ELECTION OF
THE
RESPONDENT
NO.4- SRI K.G. KUMARA SWAMY TO THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATURE FROM NO.111, SHIVAMOGGA RURAL (SC RESERVE)
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, GENERAL ELECTIONS HELD IN THE YEAR 2013, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE NOMINATION PAPER OF RESPONDENT NO.4 IS IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL AS HE IS NOT A PERSON
WHO BELONGS TO THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND IS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO CONTEST FROM NO.111, SHIVAMOGGA
RURAL (SC) ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, WHICH IS RESERVED FOR SCHEDULED CASTE.
DECLARE THAT THE IMPROPER ACCEPTANCE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT NOMINATION PAPER HAS MATERIALLY
AFFECTED THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION AND CONSEQUENTLY DECLARE THE ELECTION HELD ON 05.05.2013 FOR THE
N0.111, SHIVAMOGGA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY AS VOID.
8
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvÀæ, UÀÄgÀĪÁgÀ, ¥sɧæªÀj 4, 2016
¨sÁUÀ 4
ORDER FOR FRESH ELECTIONS TO N0.111, SHIVAMOGGA RURAL (SC) ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY.
THIS ELECTON PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
ORDER
Petitioner 'States that he is an Elector/Voter of the No.111 of Shivamogga Rural (Scheduled Caste) Assembly Constituency
and his name is found at Para No.103 Sl.No.320 of Voters' list. He challenged the election of respondent No.4 in the general elections
held to the 14th Karnataka Assembly on 05.05.2013 and made a prayer to declare the said election as void. The Assembly
Constituency is reserved under Article, 332 of the Constitution of India for the candidates belanging to' scheduled caste. The 4th
respondent was the afficial nominee of the Bharatiya Janatha Party, was nat qualified to contest from the Shivamogga Rural
Constituency under Section 5 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as RP Act for short) Read with Conduct
of the Election Rules, 1961. The 4th respondent, not a persan belonging to scheduled caste but claimed falsely rne status of the
scheduled caste and contested the said election. The scheduled caste status certificate of the 4th respondent has been quashed by this
Court in WP No.17975/2010 dated 30.05.2013. Hence, the application submitted by the 4th respondent to contest the Assembly
Nomination from the said Constituency should have been dismissed or rejected by the Returning Officer and not doing so, electing an
ineligible candidate, the 4th respondent, The acceptance of nomination of the 4th respondent is contrary to the provisions of RP Act.
Hence, he prays that the 4th respondent's nomination papers has materially affected the result of the election and consequently to
declare the election dated 05.05.2013 in respect of No.111 constituency as void.
2. This Court on production of draft issues by the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent has framed the. issues on
15.04.2015 and posted this matter today for Filing the list of witnesses. The list of witnesses has to be furnished as per Rule 14 of the
Election Petition Proceeding Rules Karnataka Notification ROC No.866/67 dated 28.03.1967 and to pay the process fee and the
traveling allowances, the subsistence allowances and the local conveyance allowances for those who are required to be summoned.
Today, no such list of witnesses as required under Rule 14 of the Act, has been filed. It is seen from the file of this election petition that
the petitioner has not filed even the list of documents also. In order to examine the prayer made by the petitioner to declare the election
of Shivamogga Assembly Constituency dated 05.05.2013 as void, list of witnesses and list of documents are very much required,
without which election petition cannot be proceeded.
3. From examining the case of the petitioner on basis of the pleadings that acceptance of nomination of 4th respondent is
resulting in adversely affecting the result of the petitioner, since, he was defeated and 4th respondent is succeeded in the declared
election. It is his contention that the 4th respondent does not belongs to scheduled caste. When such being his case, he should have
filed the list of documents to challenge the fact that the 4th respondent does not belong to scheduled caste. In the absence of any
documents and evidence I find it difficult to proceed further to examine the case. The petitioner is a 3rd party voter/ elector he cannot be
examined himself to elucidate election process or the election agent and purpose would not be served by posting this matter for
recording evidence of the petitioner and no application is also made seeking time atleast to produce the list of witnesses. Under these
circumstances, it is inevitable for me to hold that this petition cannot be proceeded without the list of witnesses and documents.
No useful purpose also serves if the petition is proceeded with.
4. The petitioner having filed the petition must be diligent in prosecuting the case, by producing documents and list of
witnesses. The petitioner has simply wasted the public time for almost about two years. Hence, it is inevitable for this Court to dismiss
this petition with costs.
5. Accordingly, it is dismissed and U/s.119 of R.P. Act, petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/ - payable to High Court
Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
V. RAGHAVENDRA
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer
(Training & Election Expenditure)
O/o the Chief Electoral Officer,
D.P.A.R. (Elections) Karnataka,
Nirvachana Nilaya, Sheshadri Road,
Bengaluru-560001
P.R. 47
SC-100
By Order,
TAPAS KUMAR
SR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
ªÀÄÄzÀæPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæPÁ±ÀPÀgÀÄ:- ¸ÀAPÀ®£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvÀæ, ¸ÀPÁðj PÉÃAzÀæ ªÀÄÄzÀæuÁ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-59
R.N.I. No. KARBIL/2001/47147 POSTAL REGN. No. RNP/KA/BGS/2202/2014-16
Licensed to post without prepayment WPP No. 297