G.H.NINGEGOWDA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in the Panchayath Election is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure-C) by which respondent No.2-the Returning Officer rejected the application of the petitioner for recounting of votes insofar as booth No.66 of Gagenahalli Village Panchayath and for a mandamus directing respondent No.2-the Returning Officer to consider the application dated 30.12.2020 for recounting of votes.

(2.) Heard Sri B.S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Nithyananda K.R., learned HCGP assisted the Court.

(3.) Sri B.S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner contested the election held on 22.12.2020 to Gagenahalli Village Constituency No.2 of Gagenahalli Village Panchayath. The counting of votes was held on 30.12.2020. Petitioner is concerned with Booth No.66 of Gagenahalli Village Panchayath, for which counting started at 12.00 Noon on 30.12.2020. One Sri Chandregowda, Agent of the petitioner was present during the counting. The Returning Officer announced the votes secured by respondent No.3 and the petitioner as 430 and 424 respectively. Petitioner's agent Sri Chandregowda raised objection stating that there is wrong counting and immediately requested the Returning Officer for recounting. The application signed by the petitioner was also made immediately as per Annexure-C for recounting of votes. The said request of the petitioner was rejected as per Annexure-A endorsement stating that the petitioner's application for recounting was not made within 10 minutes of completion of counting. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that no such time limit is prescribed under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') nor the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 (for short 'the Rules). Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to Rule 71 of the Rules to submit that the 2nd respondent-the Returning Officer failed to follow the procedure contemplated therein. Further learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is not questioning the election, but is questioning only rejection of his application for re- counting of votes, as such the writ petition would be maintainable. Learned counsel would also contend that Section 19 of the Act provides grounds of challenge in an election petition, but rejection of request for re- counting is not a ground under Section 19 of the Act.