THANIYA NAIKA Vs. BABU MUKHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions are disposed, of by the following common order. They involve a common question of law and the facts may be taken as more or less common to all the petitions with reference to the question of law that falls to be answered though elections held relate to different constituencies and the challenges made by the concerned respondents were in different election petitions but presented to the same Munsiff. All the elections with which we are concerned were held for the same Mandal but for different constituencies in that Mandal. In all the petitions except one the petitioners are candidates for seat reserved for women and returned unopposed. In one petition the election is for the general seat. The Mandal in question is Shirva Mandal in Udupi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Another fact which is common to all the petitions is that the candidates whose nomination papers were rejected at the time of scrutiny were the persons who presented, the election petition challenging the result of the election on the ground that the rejection of their nominations was improper and not sustainable in law. In all the cases, the learned Principal Munsiff, Udupi, has allowed the petitions holding that nominations were improperly rejected and therefore has set aside the elections of candidates to the various reserved seats in the multi-member constituencies of the Mandal, as the election petitioners' nominations were found to have been improperly rejected for those seats, except in the case of W.P.No. 15917/1987 which was by a voter of the constituency and not a candidate.

(2.) Though there are other grounds urged in the memorandum of Writ Petitions, at the time of argument, none of them is pressed. The only ground pressed by Mr. P. Viswanatha Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the election petitioners in their respective election petitions not having made all the returned candidates in the various relevant constituencies as respondents or parties, the learned Munsiff, Udupi, erred in proceeding to trial without dismissing the election petitions in limine in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Karnataka ZiIla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for not complying with the mandate chained in Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. The thrust of the argument is that election is always held to a constituency and therefore the expression 'returned candidates' occurring in Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 14 of the Act, should be so construed to include all the "returned candidates" in the constituency notwithstanding the fact that the election petitioners had challenged the election of only of the returned candidates to the reserved seats.

(3.) As already noticed, the elections in question were held to multi member constituencies in the Mandal. Under the Act, provision is made for reservation of seats in constituencies in favour of women and Members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in certain proportions and women belonging to either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in addition to general seats in any given constituency. In order to understand the thrust of the argument, it is better to illustrate the same as was done by Mr. P. Viswanatha Shetty. In a constituency in the Mandal, it is possible that there are three seats, one reserved for women, one reserved for Member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and another a general seat. If as in the instant cases, a person whose nomination was rejected for a seat in the constituency which was a reserved seat then having regard to the language of Section 14(2) of the Act read with the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the returned candidates referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act refers to all the candidates of the constituency, that is, candidates who are declared elected to the reserved seats of women. Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and the general seat and therefore in the cases on hand the petitioners not having made other returned candidates in the constituency parties to the election petition, the Court was bound to reject in limine the petition even before trial for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 14(2) of the Act.