M.C. MADEGOWDA Vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI . K.N. Phanindra, learned counsel to accept notice for respondent No.1. Learned Government advocate to accept notice for respondents No. 2 and 3. The respondents No. 5 and 6 have entered caveat. Notice to respondent No.4 is not necessary.

(2.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 07.01.2013 passed in Election Petition No. 1/2013. By the said order, the Tribunal has rejected IA. No.2 filed by the petitioner herein seeking stay. While IA. No. 4 filed by the respondents No. 5 and 6 herein has been allowed and the interim order granted earlier has been vacated.

(3.) A Perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal would indicate that the Tribunal having taken note of the provision under which the petitioner was contending that the respondents No.5 and 6 were disqualified has also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Shivaram v. Assistant Commissioner, reported in 2011 (2) KLJ 325, wherein this aspect of the matter has been clarified by this Court to hold that there would be no disqualification until the necessary orders are passed by the Election Commission. That being the position, when the Court below has taken note of the legal position and has arrived at the conclusion, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Election Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order does not call for interference. However, the Election Tribunal shall make all efforts to dispose of the Election Petition itself on its merits as expeditiously as possible.