MAHADEVAMMA Vs. M R GURUSWAMY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 7.9.2016, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nanjangud, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge has dismissed the Election Petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioner did not implead all the contesting candidates as party-respondents in the said Election Petition. Therefore, the mandatory provision under Section 15(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('the Act' for short) has not been complied with.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the election to the Mallupura Grama Panchayat was held on 29.5.2015. The petitioner had contested the said election under the reserved category of Backward Class-B (General). Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had also contested the said election for the said constituency under the reserved category mentioned above. Respondent No. 1, Mr. M.R. Guruswamy, was declared as having won the election. For, he had secured 290 votes, whereas, the petitioner has secured merely 161 votes. The election results were declared on 5.6.2015. Subsequently, the petitioner discovered that the respondent No. 1 had not disclosed all the relevant information, especially the information with regard to a criminal case pending against him. Therefore, respondent No. 1 had filed a false declaration, wherein he claimed that no criminal case was pending against him. Hence, the petitioner filed an Election Petition, namely, Election Petition No. 3/2015 before the learned Civil Judge. Subsequently, on 8.7.2016, the Election Petition was transferred from the Court of learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Nanjangud, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nanjangud, and the Election Petition was re-numbered as Election Petition No. 1/2016. During the course of the trial, the respondent No. 1 filed an application, namely IA. No. 1/2016, wherein the respondent No. 1 sought the dismissal of the Election Petition inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner had failed to include all the contesting candidates as party-respondents. Therefore, the mandatory requirement of Section 15 (2) of the Act had not been complied with. After hearing both the parties, by the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge has dismissed the Election Petition. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Relying on the case of Manjula v. Smt. Sangamma And Others (Writ Petition No. 84101/2012, decided by this Court on 18.1.2013), the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the requirement of Section 15(2) of the Act is not that all the candidates who contested the election should be added as party-respondents. In case, petitioner had added only those persons who had contested for the specific constituency, and for the reserved category, then the requirement of Section 15(2) of the Act is fulfilled. Therefore, the learned Judge is not justified in rejecting the petitioner's Election Petition.