HANMANTHAPPA Vs. SANNA PAKEERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The election petition was presented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Additional Registrar, Circuit Bench of High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the time of presenting the election petition. The petition was not accompanied by as many copies of the petition for issue of notice to the respondents. Thus, the election petition filed by the petitioner is not in conformity with Sections 81(1) and 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') - Section 86(1) of the Act states that High Court shall dismiss the election petition, which does not comply with the provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the Act. The Apex Court in the case of G.V. Sreerama Reddy and Anr. v. Returning Officer and Ors., 2010 AIR(SC) 133 has held that the election petition is to be presented by any candidate or elector relating to the election personally to the authorised officer of the High Court and failure to adhere such course would be contrary to the said provision and in that event, the election petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of improper presentation. In the circumstances, this petition is rejected on the ground of improper presentation.

(3.) The petitioner has filed an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 121 of the Act seeking refund of the security deposit. It is evident that petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as security for costs of the petition as per Section 117 of the Act at the time of filing of the election petition at the Circuit Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga. The petitioner is entitled for refund of the said amount in accordance with the Sub-section (2) of Section 121 of the Act. Consequently, Misc. Cvl. 2851/2010 is allowed.