KLAKKAPPA Vs. N GNARASIMHEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case leading to this petition are simple. The petitioner was one of the candidates for election to the Mysore State Legislative Assembly from the Chennarayapatna Constituency. There were objections to the acceptance of his nomination paper on the ground that be had at the time a subsisting contract with the Government of Mysore. The Returning Officer overruled and rejected the objection and the petitioner was declared to have been duly nominated. The petitioner contested the elections held on 16-1-1952 and was thereafter declared duly elected and the fact was notified in the official Gazette.

(2.) The 1st respondent filed an election petition calling in question the election of the petitioner. He urged several grounds in support of the petition but it will be unnecessary to refer to all of them as all the members of the Tribunal were unanimous in overruling all the grounds excepting one. That ground related to the existence of a contract for the supply of goods between the Bharath Trading and Industrial Company of which the petitioner was a partner and the Government of Mysore at the time the petitioner filed his nomination paper. The majority of the Tribunal gave a finding that there was a subsisting contract between the petitioner's firm and the Government of Mysore at the time the petitioner filed his nomination paper and on that ground declared the whole election void and set aside the election of the petitioner, it will be necessary to state at this stage that the Chairman of the Tribunal differed from the majority of the Tribunal and gave a finding to the effect that there was no subsisting contract between the petitioner and the Government of Mysore at the time the petitioner filed his nomination paper.

(3.) The petitioner has therefore approached this court for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the proceedings of the Tribunal.