A DEVEGOWDA Vs. PUTTANNA
LAWS(KAR)-2005-5-12
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on May 23,2005

A.DEVEGOWDA Appellant
VERSUS
PUTTANNA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

M. CHENNA REDDY VV.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
SARAT CHANDRA RABHA V KHAGENDRANATH [REFERRED TO]
SAMANT N BALKRISHNA VS. GEORGE FERNANDEZ [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH RAI VS. SACHHIDANAND SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAHIM KHAN VS. KHURSHID AHMED [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HUSSAIN MIR VS. SHAMSUL HUDA [REFERRED TO]
DAULAT RAM CHAUHAN VS. ANAND SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH VS. HARDIAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM SHARAN YADAV VS. THAKUR MUNESHWAR NATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. COLLECTOR RAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR SEN NEGI VS. DEV RAJ NEGI [REFERRED TO]
QUAMARUL ISLAM VS. S K KANTA [REFERRED TO]
R PUTHUNAINARALHITHAN VS. PH PANDIAN [REFERRED TO]
V NARAYANASWAMY VS. C P THIRUNAVUKKARASU [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR VS. RAKESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS election petition presented under Section 81 of the representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'), by an unsuccessful candidate in the biennial elections held to elect a representative to represent Bangalore Teachers' Constituency in the karnataka Legislative Council, prays for a declaration that the election of first respondent, who has been declared elected from this constituency, is void and illegal, for not only having received void voters in his favour but also for having indulged in corrupt practices during the election and to further declare the petitioner as duly elected for the seat from the Bangalore Teachers' Constituency to the Karnataka Legislative council. Petitioner has also prayed for awarding costs.
(2.)WHILE the grounds urged in support of the petition for setting aside the election of first respondent are as contemplated in Section 100 (1) (b)and also as provided for in Section 100 (1) (d), particularly clauses (i), (ii)and (iii) of this sub-section, and the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void, the petitioner has also sought for a further prayer to declare him to be the duly elected person in place of first respondent, particularly invoking the provisions of Section 101 (b) of the Act.
(3.)PETITION averments indicate that there were eleven candidates who had aspired for being declared elected from this constituency; that the system of voting is by single transferable preferential vote; that the returned candidate in terms of the certificate in Form 23 issued by the returning Officer on 25-6-2002 giving the details of the pattern of voting and the voters secured by the candidates, indicates that at the end of the tenth round of counting, while the petitioner had managed to secure in all 3194 votes and was the last person i. e. , tenth person to be eliminated, the first respondent - the winning candidate - had secured a total number of 3771 votes and was accordingly declared elected by the returning Officer. The elections themselves were conducted on 23-6-2002 and the result was declared on 26-6-2002, while the notification notifying the calendar of events was issued on 29-5-2002. The calendar of events indicated that the nominations could be filed from 29-5-2002 and the last date for filing nominations was 5-6-2002, scrutiny was on 6-6-2002, last date for withdrawal was on 8-6-2002 and the polling was on 23-6-2002, as stated above.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.