LAXMAN SANGAPPA SAVADI Vs. DONGARAGAON SHAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAXMAN Sangappa Savadi, an unsuccessful candidate in the election to the Athani constituency is before me seeking for a declaration declaring that the election of first respondent to the House of Assembly from 209 Athani Constituency as null and void. Petitioner alternatively prays that the petitioner be duly declared as elected to 209 Athani Assembly Constituency to fill the seat of the house.

(2.) FACTS as narrated in the petition are as under: petitioner hails from an agricultural family and is a social activist in Athani for several years. He is an active member of National united Janata Dal political party. He aspired to contest to the seat of Assembly from 109 Athani Constituency and sought for ticket from the United Janata Dal Party. Party issued him A and B forms to file his nomination. Prior to issue of those forms the petitioner had filed nomination on 23. 8. 1999 and he had submitted the forms on 24. 8. 1999 at 2. 45 P. M. to the Returning Officer. The same political party issued A and B forms to Respondent No. 6 to contest in the said election from the same constituency. Smt. Leeladevi R. Prasad, approached the President of the Political Party to get clarification. Ultimately, the President of the political party issued forms to the petitioner cancelling the forms issued to Respondent No. 6. According to the petitioner he was under the impression that he alone represents the United Janata Dal party in the said election. Nominations were scrutinized on 25. 8. 1999. The Returning Officer returned the form of the petitioner on the ground that respondent no. 6 has filed another set of A and B forms at 2. 59 PM by cancelling the forms already submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner made a representation at 12. 40 PM stating that the petitioner has been issued with A and B forms by the President of the party and such forms have not been issued to respondent No. 6 also and there is some confusion regarding A and B forms, and that a clarification is necessary from the President of the Party. He requested for 24 hours time to get clarification from the President. The respondent No. 7 passed an order on 25. 8. 1999 accepting the notice in B form in respect of Respondent No. 6 and treated her as the candidate set up by the United Janata Dal Party and the notice in Form B in respect of the petitioner was not accepted. Petitioner s grievance is that an erroneous order has been passed by the seventh respondent and that there is non application of mind. The refusal of time is contrary to Section 36 (5) of the Representation of People act. Respondent No. 6 was the Minister of Kannada and Culture and she has misused the machineries of the Government according to her convenience and got the Returning Officer of her choice to do her mis-deeds and illegalities with a sole object to get elected. Respondent No. 7 has acted as a tool of Respondent No. 6. Petitioner also complains that the denial of time has caused injustice to him. This according to him is a patent error. Elections were held both to the Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha on 11. 8. 1999. The ballot paper of the Assembly consisted of the symbol allotted to the respondents representing the various parties. Voters were under confusion while casting their votes, as more than 6000 votes have been invalidated due to costing of two votes on the ballot paper of assembly election. The symbol allotted to the petitioner was Aero plane and the voters desire is to vote to arrow symbol in respect of Lok Sabha election. The gullible voters could not distinguish the ballot papers of Assembly and Lok Sabha. According to the petitioner if he had contested the election with the recognition of United Janata dal, he could have been easily elected to fill the seat of the assembly. Respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondent no. 7 has rejected the application of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 was in full control of Respondent No. 7. With these facts, petitioner wants the election of the first respondent to be set aside by this Court.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance pursuant to the notice by this Court. Written statement is filed by the first respondent winning candidate. In the written statement it is stated that the election process and declaration made by R-7 is in accordance with law. He has also stated that the differences between R-1 and 6 are inner party rivalries. Neither the first respondent nor the returning officer can be held responsible for the same. He has stated that the petitioner did request the returning officer to get confirmation from the President of his Party regarding the confusion in issuing B-forms. The Returning Officer has rightly come to a conclusion that giving 24 hours time to the petitioner does not serve any purpose because the stipulated time to file nomination along with A and B' Forms has already been over. No further information can be entertained after the stipulated time was over. With regard to various allegations made against the petitioner, those allegations are denied by a detailed statement. In so far as Section 36 (5) is concerned, respondent no. 1 states that the Returning Officer shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violence or causes behind his control. In the instant case there is no such interruption or obstruction warranting any time. The Returning Officer according to the respondent is correct in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of time. In so far as allegations against R-6 is concerned, they have been denied.