SMT. MAHADEVAMMA Vs. M.R. GURUSWAMY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 7-9-2016, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, 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 Sec. 15(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and 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). Respondents 1 to 4 had also contested the said election for the said constituency under the reserved category mentioned above. Respondent 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 1 had not disclosed all the relevant information, especially the information with regard to a criminal case pending against him. Therefore, respondent 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 of 2015 before the learned Civil Judge. Subsequently, on 8-7-2016, the election petition was transferred from the Court of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Nanjangud, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nanjangud, and the election petition was renumbered as Election Petition No. 1 of 2016. During the course of the trial, the respondent 1 filed an application, namely I.A. No. 1 of 2016, wherein the respondent 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 Sec. 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 Vs. Smt. Sangamma and Others Writ Petition No. 84101 of 2012, dated 18-1-2013 , the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the requirement of Sec. 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 Sec. 15(2) of the Act is fulfilled. Therefore, the learned Judge is not justified in rejecting the petitioner's election petition.