PRASANNA KUMAR Vs. G.M. SIDDESHWAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the validity of the election of the respondent to the 15th Lok Sabha from 13 Davanagere Lok Sabha Constituency at the election held on 30.4.2009 and the result of the election declared on 16.5.2009. The respondent had filed Misc. Cvl. 386/2010 in E.P. No. 2/2009 invoking Section 81(3), 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the R.P. Act' for short) read with Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for the dismissal/rejection of the election petition and Misc. Cvl. No. 1431/2010 invoking Order VI Rule 16 of CPC for striking out paragraph Nos. 1(III)(i) to (iv), II(2) to (17). By a common order, dated 24.2.2010 both the applications were disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to attest each copy of the election petition and its annexures as the true copy. The respondent Nos. 2 to 28 were ordered to be deleted from these proceedings. Paragraph Nos. III(iv) and II(15) of the election petition were ordered to be struck out.

(2.) THE respondent filed Misc. Cvl. No. 3269/2010 in E.P. No. 3/2009 invoking Section 86, 87 and 100(1)(a)(d)(i)(iv) of the R.P. Act read with Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for the rejection of the election petition and Misc. Cvl. 3270/2010 invoking Sections 86, 87 and 100(1)(a)(d)(i)(iv) of the R.P. Act read with Order VI Rule 16 of CPC for striking out paragraph Nos. 3 to 11. The said applications were dismissed by a common order, dated 22.6.2010.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner in E.P. No. 2/2009 is that the acceptance of the nomination paper of the returned candidate (the respondent herein) is in violation of Section 9A of the R.P. Act, as the provisions contained in Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the R.P. Act are attracted to the respondent. The respondent was a Member of Parliament between 2004 -2009. As the Member of Parliament, he recommended the construction of a large number of bus -shelters under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). He recommended that the Principal, GMIT be the implementing authority for the construction work of these bus -shelters. The Principal, GMIT is only an employee of the respondent. The GMIT is being run by Srishyla Educational Trust of which the respondent is the Chairman. The Principal is thus an employee of the respondent. The Principal is an agent and benamidhar of the respondent. Violating the guidelines of MPLADS, the respondent has chosen the implementing authority only to reap the benefits from the contract. The entrustment of the work to the Principal, GMIT is without calling for the tenders and is therefore in contravention of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The respondent also got the cost of the construction of the bus -shelters revised upward with a view to benefit himself. The Deputy Commissioner was acting blindly and at the behest of the respondent. The cost of the works executed amounting to Rs. 77.50 lakhs have been siphoned off into the funds of the said Trust.