YASHASVI Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the petition is listed for 'hearing on interlocutory application', the petition itself is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the notice dated 29-11-2012 which is impugned at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to declare the petitioner as the President of Hosanagara Taluk Panchayat, pursuant to the election meeting held on 3-11-2012.

(2.) At the outset, it is to be stated that though the issue relates only to the meeting notice for elections of Adhyaksha and the same being assailed in the instant petition, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respective learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have been heard elaborately in the matter so as to consider as to whether interference is required by this Court in the light of the second prayer.

(3.) The case of the petitioner as put forth by the learned Senior Counsel is that the elections for the second term as Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat was Scheduled initially by the issue of notice dated 16-10-2012 fixing the meeting on 3-11-2012. The calendar of events for the said meeting was fixed as required under the Rules. The proceedings on 3-11-2012 did not conclude and the meeting was thereafter adjourned. Subsequently, the meeting notice dated 29-11-2012 was issued scheduling the meeting on 26-12-2012. In the said meeting, the commencement of the meeting was indicated from the stage of filing of the nomination papers and thereafter meeting was to be held at 1.00 p.m. In that regard, it is contended that when by the proceedings dated 3-11-2012, there were only two candidates for the post of Adhyaksha and the candidature of the 5th respondent herein was to be rejected for the purpose of the original caste certificate not being produced, the sole candidate was the petitioner herein. In that circumstance, the Rules 3-A to 3-E of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat) Rules, 1994 relating to the election to the post of Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat is referred to indicate that in such circumstance, the sole candidate would have to be declared as the elected candidate and the question of postponing the election would not arise. The contention put forth in that regard is that when the scrutiny of the nomination papers was at the commencement of the meeting after nominations are filed, in such circumstance, there was occasion for postponing the meeting itself.