H D REVANNA Vs. G PUTTASWAMY GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was declared elected on 11-12-94 in the election held on 26-11-94 for the 133 Holenarasipura Assembly Constitutency in Karnataka State. The first respondent filed Election Petition No. 16 of 1995 in the High Court of Karnataka on the following grounds:-

(2.) The allegations in the Election Petition were mainly that after completion of counting by the Returning Officer, without announcing the result and recording the same in the prescribed form, a request made by the appellant for recount was entertained by the said official who was unduly influenced by the father of the appellant, H.D. Devegowda who later became the Chief Minister of the State and in course of time the Prime Minister of the Country. It was alleged that the first respondent was leading by four votes and the father of the appellant who was by then declared elected to the Assembly, told the Returning Officer through telephonic communication that a recount should be ordered and the appellant should be helped to win the election by hook or crook. According to the petition, recount was ordered without compliance of Rule 63 brushing aside the objections raised by the first respondent arbitrarily and whimsically. Such recounting ordered by the Returning Officer who was unduly influenced by the father of the appellant was in utter disobedience of the mandate of law and vitiated the election. Secondly it was alleged that the vociferous and threatening conduct of the first respondent coerced and influenced the voters to vote for him as they were threatened with dire consequences otherwise. There was an atmosphere of terrorism in several places which prevented the voters from exercising their franchise freely according to their will and choice. The agents of Janata Dal party to which the appellant belonged were in total control of some polling booths and they were interfering in every election affair. It was also alleged that quite a number of invalid votes were counted in favour of the appellant as if they were valid. On such allegations, the first respondent prayed for declaring the election of the appellant to be void and declaring himself to be duly elected while holding that the order of recount was void and the result of such recount was non-est.

(3.) After entering appearance, the appellant filed three applications for summary dismissal of the Election Petition for non-compliance with certain statutory provisions which are mandatory. I.A. No. IX, was on the ground that the petition did not disclose a cause of action as the allegations of undue influence and recounting were not followed by any averment that the result of the election was materially affected; nor was there any averment in the petition as to any defect or mal practice in the course of recounting. I.A. No. X was for rejection of the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the Election Petition as it did not fulfil the requirements of law and consequent dismissal of the petition. I.A. No. XV was for dismissal of the petition on the ground that allegations of corrupt practices were vague and not supported by material facts or particulars.