S B AMARKHED Vs. BASANGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this petition is filed under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by the unsuccessful candidate Dr. S.b. amarkhed praying for declaring the election of respondent 1 to the 23-manvi assembly constituency as void under the Provisions of Section 100(1)(a), (b) & (d) of the Act, on the count that respondent 1 was disqualified to be a member of the state legislative assembly under article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of india; as also on the count that corrupt practices such as, rigging and booth capturing have been practised at the election by respondent 1 and his supporters and also on the count that the result of the election in so far as it concerned respondent 1 has been materially affected. The petitioner has also prayed for declaring him as having been duly elected from the said constituency.

(2.) general election to 23-manvi assembly constituency was held on 24-11-1989. The last date for filing nomination to the said election was on 30-10-1989. Petitioner and respondents-1 to 6 had filed their nominations. The scrutiny of the nomination papers took place on 2-11-1989. The last date for withdrawing one's candidature was fixed on 4-11-1989. The nominations of all the candidates were approved by the returning officer, with the result, in all 7 candidates were in the fray for the said election. The election took place on 24-11-1989. It is seen that in view of the complalnts filed by the polling officers in relation to the two booths viz., polling booth nos. 6 and 7, re-poll was ordered and the re-poll took place on 26-11-1989. After the re-poll was held, counting took place and respondent 1-basangouda who polled 23,500 votes was declared as having been elected in the said election. Pctitioncr-dr. S.r. amarkhed polled the second highest number of votes viz., 17,928. The symbol of respondent 1 at the election was 'bicycle' and the symbol of the petitioner was 'hand'. The other candidates viz., respondents 3 to 6 polled lesser number of votes.

(3.) it is the case of the petitioner that respondent 1-basangouda was the pradhana of bagalwad mandal panchayat in manvi taluk at the time of filing his nomination and he continued to hold the said office till 6-12-1989 on which date according to the petitioner, respondent 1 tendered his resignation. Petitioner has alleged that the post of pradhana of mandal panchayat is an office of profit as the pradhana is paid a salary of Rs. 300/- p.m. under the Karnataka zilla parishads, taluk panchayat samithis, mandal panchayats and nyaya panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the zilla parishads act), petitioner has, therefore, contended that respondent 1 incurred disqualification under article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution oflndia.