ABDUL RAHEEM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are presented by two of the candidates who filed their nomination papers to the office of the Councillors of the Town Municipality of Arasikere in accordance with the calendar of events issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar and Returning Officer under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The undisputed facts which are necessary to be stated for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows: The petitioner in the first of the petitions is a voter living in Division No. 1 of the aforementioned Town Municipality while the petitioner in the second of the petitions is a voter residing in the V Division of the same Municipality. Both of them filed their nominations in response to the calendar of events issued by the Returning Officer on 5-7-1983. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was taken up by the respondent-Returning Officer, on 7-7-1983. The nomination papers of these two petitioners came to be rejected on the ground that their names were not found in the voters' list of the Division in respect of which they had filed their nominations and that they had also not filed with their nominations, certified copy of the relevant voters' list of the other Division where their names were found as required by Rs. 15(5) of the Karnataka Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Aggrieved by such rejection, the petitioners have approached this court inter alia contending that the rejection of the nomination papers was wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the list prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-sec.(2) of S.14 of the Act was not in conformity with the delimitation of the divisions effected by the Government under the provisions contained in S.11 of the Act and as a result of which the petitioners' names along with the names of others had been interchanged from one Division to another. In the case of the petitioner in the first of the petitions, his name was shown in the third Division while according to the de-limitation in force his name ought to have been shown in the I Division. Similarly, the petitioner in the second of the petitions, a resident of Division No. 5, was also shown in Division No. 1, contrary to the de-limitation notification. The actual reason recorded, in the case of both the petitioners for rejecting their nominations is that there has been non-compliance with the requirement of R.15(5) of the Rules. Normally, that being an improper rejection, should have been agitated in an election petition presented under S.21 of the Act. But, at the time, the petitions were taken for preliminary hearing, the petitioners having satisfied this court prima facie that the preparation of voters' list was not in accordance with the delimitation effected under S.11 of the Act, the court issued notice to the respondents and stayed the elections scheduled in respect of Divisions Nos. 1 and 5. The court was persuaded to adopt that course particularly in the light of the admission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that there was indeed a mistake which came to be rectified on 7-7-1983 by the authority referred to in S.14(2) of the Act and communicated to the Returning Officer on 8-7-1983. Consequently, on 8-7-1983, the Returning Officer made the necessary alteration in the polling stations concerning the two divisions in question along with other polling stations concerning the other divisions.

(3.) At that stage, in these proceedings, some of the candidates whose nominations had come to be accepted, filed application to intervene and that application has come to be heard along with the main petitions.