LAKKAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELECTIONS to the 3rd respondent-Motagondanahalli Gram Panchayat was held on 6-8-2000 and after counting, the Returning Officer recorded in Form 31 the number of votes secured by each candidate as per Annexure-A. Some persons presented applications at 1-30 p. m. for recounting of votes and the Returning Officer allowed the same. After recounting, it was found that petitioner secured 367 votes and 4th respondent secured 370 votes as against 371 and 369 votes mentioned in annexure-A. The same was announced in Annexure-D. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the declaration of result of 4th respondent in Annexure-E and to direct the returning Officer to declare the petitioner as elected.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner has got alternative remedy under Section 19 of the Karnataka panchayat Raj Act, the petitioner has approached this Court as the returning Officer should not have entertained the application for recounting after signing Form 31. According to the learned Counsel, the returning Officer becomes functus offlcio after signing Form 31. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of K. Venkatachalam v A swamickan and Another and contended that despite availability of alternative remedy, writ jurisdiction can be exercised.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 4 vehemently submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of this court in writ appeal against an interlocutory order passed by this Court has kept open the maintainability of writ petition and hence it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Learned Counsel for,4th respondent submits that even if the Returning Officer signs Form 31 as found at Annexure-A, that does not take away his jurisdiction to entertain applications for recounting. The Counsel submits that the matter requires evidence and this Court cannot record the same in writ jurisdiction.