Y.S. YATHEESH CHANDRA Vs. VOKKALIGARA SANGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI H.V. Manjunath, learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No. 4 and 5. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondents No. 1 to 3 is not necessary.

(2.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the third respondent to consider the representation dated 24.12.2013 at Annexure -D and allot symbols to the candidates contesting from the Bangalore Urban and City Constituency in the elections to be held to the Managing Committee of the first respondent -Sangha.

(3.) HOWEVER , the question is as to whether the case of the petitioner would require consideration at this juncture. The announcement of the election with the calendar of events was initially made on 27.11.2013 and also published on 30.11.2013. From, the notification dated 27.11.2013, it is seen that such description in respect of the Bangalore region is found at Sl. No. 6 wherein it is specifically indicated that in respect of the Bangalore region, the voters list would be prepared in the order of serial numbers and in respect of the other districts by allotting symbols. In the notification dated 30.11.2013 also, it has been indicated that the list of candidates would be prepared in the order of serial number only. If at all the petitioner had any grievance with regard to the same, the petitioner should have immediately taken steps for redressal of his grievance. However, the representation regarding which the petitioner seeks consideration was made only on 24.12.2013 and the instant petition is filed on 03.01.2014 in respect of the elections which are scheduled on 5.01.2014. In such circumstance, I am of the view that this Court at this juncture would not intervene in the process of elections. Accordingly, the mandamus sought for consideration of the representation would not serve any purpose at this juncture.