VEERESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed these appeals under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, being aggrieved by the order dated 21-10-2016 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 103198 and 103199 of 2016 connected with W.P. No. 29822 of 2016.

(2.) In their memorandum of appeal, the appellants have raised common grounds and have stated that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has failed to notice that the writ petitioners had not sought for setting aside of the election to the post of Zilla Panchayat. However, the challenge was only with respect to the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, in favour of the respondent 5, As such, the said matter is in no way related to the election petition. The appellant has further stated that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitions are not maintainable, was also without any basis. The learned Single Judge failed to notice that the appellant-Smt. Shaila has preferred a separate election petition in the Competent Court. As such, the relief sought for in the writ petitions is a different relief confining to the obtaining of the Caste Certificate by the respondent No. 5 Smt. Veena, fraudulently and in collusion with the respondent No. 4 Tahsildar. Thus, without appreciating the scope and ambit of the writ petitions and the relief claimed therein, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petitions are not maintainable, which finding was thus erroneous. With this the appellants have prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the writ petitions filed by them.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 4 in all these appeals are being represented by the learned Government Advocate and respondent no. 5 is being represented by her Counsel.