MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA Vs. PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this petition is directed against an Order made by the munsiff at hubli in an election petition arising under Section 15 of the Karnataka panchayat raj Act, 1993, in relation to an election to the grarnapanchayat. The petitioner was the returned candidate and his election came to be challenged by respondent No. 2 herein. Various grounds had been taken to challenge the election. The results of the elections were announced on 18-12-1993 and the election petition was filed on 10-1-1994. A memo was filed seeking withdrawal of the election petition on 22-1-1994 and orders are yet to be passed by the learned munsiff. In the meanwhile respondent 3 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transpose him as the petitioner.

(2.) the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a persual of the provisions of the Karnataka panchayat raj ACT in so far as sections 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are concerned they are akin to the provisions available in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, there is no provision providing for withdrawal of the petitions under the act. Therefore, in view of Section 17(7) it was permissible to file a memo as provided under Order 23, of C.P.C. for withdrawal of the petition and therefore the question of following the procedure prescribed under sections 109 or 110 of the representation of People Act would not arise and further when the provisions of the ACT prescribe a time limit within which an election petition can be filed and impose very severe restrictions and also conditions thereto as to the manner of filing of the petition, unless those conditions are complied with an election petition cannot be maintained and the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 has no place in such cases and therefore the learned munsiff has completely misdirected himself in making the Order impugned herein.

(3.) Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned counsel for the contesting respondent who had been allowed to come on record by transposition as petitioner submitted that there is no bar under the provisions of the ACT to apply Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in any event it is certainly permissible to invoke the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, sub-rule (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence the Order made by the leained munsiff need not be interfered with. The learned government pleader submitted that an election petition affects the entire constituency and therefore affects public interest and h nt- provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 would be attracted to such a case although no specific provision has been made under the ACT as has been made under the Representation of the People Act under sections 109 and 110(3)(c). It is further urged that it is certainly open to the court to invoke the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8(4) and (5) and therefore could appropriately safeguard the interest of the constituency by making an appropriate Order at the time of the disposal of the memo regarding withdrawal of the case.