GOVINDEGOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal assails the order dated 20/02/2013, passed in W.P. No. 2588/2013. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition but has reserved liberty to the petitioner to file an Election Petition within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 6 to 18 are the members of Meluru Grama Panchayath and that a notice for meeting was issued fixing the date of 21/12/2012 at 12.00 noon for holding the Election to the Post of "Chairperson" or "Adhyaksha". The nominations for the said post from eligible candidates had to be filed two hours prior to the Election time. The petitioner had filed his nomination at 9.40 a.m. The respondent No. 6 had filed the nomination at 10.10 a.m., which was after the prescribed time of two hours prior to the meeting. However, the Returning Officer had accepted the nomination of Respondent No. 6, which is contrary to Rule 5 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Grama Panchayat Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha Election) Rules, 1995 [hereinafter, referred to as the "Rules"]. Therefore, the petitioner had contended that the Returning Officer ought to have rejected the nomination of the Respondent No. 6, in which event, the petitioner would have been the lone contestant and was", entitled to be declared elected unopposed as the Adhyaksha. As the nomination of the Respondent No. 6 had been accepted and the meeting had been adjourned, the petitioner had filed Election Petition No. 1/2012 before the Court at Mysore, seeking a declaration that he is the successful candidate for the post of Adhyaksha to the Meluru Grama Panchayath and also to declare the nomination of Respondent No. 6, as null and void. No interim order had been granted in the said Election Petition. While assailing the same, the petitioner had also sought a declaration in the writ petition that he was the unopposed candidate for the post of Adhyaksha. The writ petition was opposed by Respondent No. 6.

(2.) Learned Single Judge found that there were disputed questions of fact, which could not be resolved by mere affidavits with regard to the precise time when the nomination of the Respondent No. 6 was accepted. Therefore, a declaration could not be given in the Writ Petition and that a properly constituted Election Petition ought to be filed assailing the alleged improper acceptance of nomination of Respondent No. 6 and also the result of the Election as the Respondent No. 6 had succeeded in the Election. Hence, learned Single Judge had permitted the petitioner to file a properly constituted Election Petition within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of his order, which has been assailed in this writ appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.