NEMARAJANAIK K. Vs. BHEEMANAIK LBP AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this election petition u/s. 81, 83 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 r/w Rule 4 of Election Petition Procedure Rules Karnataka, 1967, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Rules' respectively. The petitioner has prayed for declaring the election of Respondent No. 1 as void on the ground of improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the receipt of any vote which is void and for non -compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act and rules or order made under this Act as the same falls u/s. 100(1)(d)(iii) and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act and to declare the petitioner as the returned candidate.

(2.) THE facts to be stated in brief are that petitioner is a resident of Mariyammanahalli Thanda, Hospet, Bellary District belongs to SC. He was also member of the Legislative Assembly from the same constituency from 2008 -13. He contested from the same constituency to the State Assembly to the election held on 5.5.2013 for which counting took place on 8.5.2013. The first respondent secured 51972 votes as against petitioner securing 51847, the difference being 125. These voting figures are not correct. There is discrepancy between the number of votes polled and number of votes counted. The returning officer has taken into account votes which were not polled at all. He has given instances of discrepancy in respect of Mutaganahalli, Kogalli, Jagatageri polling stations and claims 21 votes were excess votes as against the votes polled there. It is stated, it is quite possible that from the remaining 211 polling stations even if there is difference of 1 vote per each polling station it would make a marked difference in the votes polled and votes counted.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the election petition. It is stated, election commission has conducted the election in a fair and impartial manner. The counting process was also conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed as per the Election Commission Rules. The votes polled and votes counted are one and the same. The cursory glance at the election petition neither discloses any cause of action nor the mandatory compliance of the requirements in the pleadings and the documents in support of the Election Petition. Election petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.