PURUSHOTHAMA S/O. LATE P V VENKATAIAH EX MAYOR, MYSORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION R/0.2127, 2ND CROSS, ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE Vs. S.M. NANDAKUMAR S/O S D MADAIAH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, these appeals are heard together. The legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P.No.12926 -30/11 dt.20.4.2011 is called in question by the appellant.

(2.) HEARD Mr. B.K. Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior counsel appearing for respondents -1 to 5 and Sri. Subramanya who is appearing for the 1st respondent in the connected appeal and Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6 and learned counsel for respondent -7

(3.) THE respondents appeared before the Regional Commissioner. Their main objections were that whip was not served on them and that they were not allowed to enter in the Meeting hall due to confusion and commotion by the Party workers as such they could not exercise their vote in favour of the congress candidate. Therefore, it was contended by them that they have not vioi6ted the alleged whip said to have been issued by the party. In order to prove their contentions, the appellant got himself examined as PW1 and thereafter one Dasegowda, President of District Congress Committee, Mysore was examined as PW2. After he was cross -examined one of the respondents, namely, Smt. Nigara Sultana - respondent -3 in the first appeal filed objections stating that the whip said to have been issued by the President was without authority of law and the same cannot be considered as a whip in the eye of law and therefore it was contended by her that the petition filed by the appellant before the Regional commissioner was not maintainable. After recording the evidence of all the parties, the Regional Commissioner by her order dt.21.3.2011 held that the respondents -1 to 6 were aware of the whip issued by the party and did not participate in the meeting scheduled on 19.2.2009 and further held that the absence of the respondents was only to allow the opposite party candidate to get elected and there is a violation of section 3(1)(b) or the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection)Act, 1987.