MOHAMMED LAIQUIDDIN Vs. AMRUTHRAO CHIMKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in this election petition filed under Section 81 of the representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') the election of the 8th respondent herein, narayaoarao manahalli to the Karnataka legislative assembly from No. 4, bidar assembly constituency is sought to be called in question by the petitioner who was also a candidate seeking election to the assembly from the very constituency via No. 4 bidar assembly constituency. It is common ground that elections were held for filling-up the seat from bidar 4 constituency on 24th noveraher, 1989 persuant to a calendar of events published by the returning officer who is a nonparty herein, well in advance and in accordance with law. In the calendar of events the last date for receiving nominations was 31st october, 1989 with the date fixed for scrutiny being 2nd november, 1989 at 11 a.m. before the returning officer. The calendar also fixed the fourth of november, 1989 as the last date for withdrawing of the nominations, the date of the polling itself being the 24th november, 1989.

(2.) it transpires from the uncontroverted pleadings in the case that amongst others the petitioner, the 8th respondent-narayanarao manahalli, 12th respondent-vaijinathrao suryavanshi and the 14th respondent-shambuling had filed their nomination papers. At the hustings respondent-12 was declared elected having polled 24,922 votes as against 23,330 polled by the petitioner. Respondent-12- vaijinathrao suryavanshi polled 4,480 votes while the 14th respondent-shambuling polled only 2,588 votes.

(3.) touching the particulars of the number of votes polled by the various contestants, there is absolutely no controversy since they are borne out by the poll results, ex. P. 2. From a perusal of the poll results it becomes evident that between the successful candidate narayanarao manahalli and the runner-up, the petitioner herein, the difference was only 1,662 votes. Complaint of the petitioner is that he would have really closed- in on the 12th respondent and would have indeed outstripped him at the hustings if only the 12th respondent-vaijinathrao suryavanshi who happened to be a member of the S.C. had not contested the election at all. He alleges that the votes polled by respondent-12 aggregating in all 4,480 would have been substantially garnered by him because he was a candidate for the cong-i party, the successor to the Indian national congress which had all along, right from the day of deliverance of this country from foreign bondage was championing the cause of the S.C. and st. Communities. It is pointed out that respondent-8 fought the elections under the banner of the bj.p. an organization known for its communal feelings being staunchily pro-hindu and, therefore, anti-harijan and even anti-muslim. Thus, it is his case that if only respondent-12- suryavanshi had stayed away from the poll-fray he would have won the election decisively being the automatic choice of the s.c/s.t. voters. It is in this context the petitioner alleges that respondent-12 who literally run him aground by taking away more than 4,000 votes from the traditional vote bank of the cong-i could not have contested the elections at all because he was at all relevant times viz. The date on which he filed the nomination paper, the date on which the nomination paper was scrutinised and the date of poll, respondent-12 was a government servant still in office and had, therefore, suffered a telling disqualification enjoined under Section 100 (1) of the act being a person holding an office of profit. It is also alleged that respondent-12 by himself would not have offered himself as a willing candidate at the hustings but his induction into the poll-fray was a clever ploy employed by forces hostile to the cong-i with a view to split the votes that would have otherwise been polled by the cong-i candidate. It is thus mentioned that being aware -of the disabilities or the disqualifications suffered by respondent-12 as a government servant precluding him from contesting any election, another manoeuvre had been adopted to plant a resignation letter purportedly in the hand of respondent-12 stated to have been duly transmitted by him to the asst. Director of agriculture, department of agriculture, bidar on whose establishment he was, then, serving as a ministerial officer. It is pointed out the aforesaid letter of resignation had been made affective from an anterior date viz. 11th march, 1989. According to the petitioner the endeavour as aforesaid had all been engineered by some unforseen hand with a view to put up hurdles in the way of the petitioner at the poll. It is further pointed out that even with all this free-wheeling by his foes their machinations proved totally futile because the alleged resignation had not become effective at all for non-acceptance. Even now, it is obvious, respondcnt-12, suryavanshi remained and continued to remain a government servant throughout the relevant period somuch so the acceptance of his nomination paper was clearly in contravention of the act and, according to the petitioner, if nomination of respondent-12 had been rejected by the returning officer as it should have been, in all probability he would have garnered a substantial number of votes secured by respondent-12 thus emerging as the successful candidate in the election. He, therefore, asserts that because of the improper acceptance of the nomination of respondent-12, suryavanshi, the result of the election had been materially affected and basing himself on this ground the petitioner seeks to set at nought the return of respondent-8, narayanarao manahalli as the successful candidate (sic) the said election. Therefore, it is, he asks for such a declaration in this election petition.