PARUTAPPA DASAPPA MACHA Vs. KRISHTAPPA SATAPPA YADALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the election held to the Bagalkot Taluk Development Board in the year 1968, the petitioners, Parutappa Basappa Macha and Laxmappa Gulappa Hosalli, and the respondents Krishtappa Satappa Yadalli and Malakajappa Parappa Sajjan, were the four contesting candidates for the two general seat? from the Bhagavati Constituency. There was one other candidate, namely, one Venkawwa Kom Pandappa Dasappanavar, who was a candidate for the Reserved seat with which we are not concerned. Objections were raised to the nomination of the second petitioner on the ground that he was disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a Taluk Board as he holds an office of profit under the Government of India. That objection was overruled by the Returning Officer and his nomination was accepted. In the election that took place on 24-11-1968 the votes polled were as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_177_MYSLJ2_1972Html1.htm</FRM> Petitioners 1 and 2 have secured the highest number of votes and they were declared as elected on 27-11-1968. Respondents 1 and 2 herein challenged their election by an Election petition before the Munsiff at Bagalkot on the grounds that the second petitioner was disqualified and the returned candidates were guilty of corrupt practices. On the pleadings the learned Munsiff framed, among others, the following two issues: (i) Whether Laxmappa Gulappa Hosalli was holding an office of profit under the Central Government? and (ii) Whether the election petition presented was proper or not and whether it was maintainable? The request to hear the above issues as preliminary issues was rejected. Thereupon respondents and 2 filed a memo on 16-2-1970 stating therein that they do not urge any other grounds raised by them in their petition except the one about disqualification of petitioner No. 2 and on that account his election is void. On the basis of the said memo, the learned Munsiff proceeded with the enquiry and recorded a finding to the effect that the second petitioner herein was disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Taluk Board as he held an office of profit under the Government of India and on the basis of the said finding, he set aside the election of both the returned candidates. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners preferred Misc. Appeal (Election Petition) No. 114 of 1970 before the District Judge, Bijapur, who affirmed the decison of the learned Munsiff by his order dated 8th July, 1971. The reasons for setting aside the election of the first petitioner are stated in paragraph-9 of the judgment of the learned District Judge. It would be convenient to set out relevant portions of the judgment which reads thus:

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, the petitioners have preferred the above writ petition. The writ petition was admitted only with regard to the first petitioner and it was dismissed as to the second petitioner, by order of this Court made on 2-8-1971.

(3.) Siri K. R. Karanth, learned counsel for the first petitioner submitted that the learned Munsiff as well as the learned District Judge were in error in setting aside the election of the first petitioner when there was no material for them to come to the conclusion that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the first petitioner has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination of the second petitioner. He argued that respondents 1 and 2 the election petitioners had adduced no evidence to prove that the result of the election of the first petitioner has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination of the second petitioner and that in the absence of proof and also in the absence of a finding, the learned District Judge as well as the learned Munsiff have erred in the exercise of their jurisdiction in setting aside the election of the first petitioner. Sri U. L. Narayana Rao for respondents 1 and 2 contended that the election in the instant case was in respect of a double seat constituency and as such one integral whole and if the election to one seat was void, the Munsiff was justified in setting aside the election as a whole.