C RAMAPPA Vs. B BOLEGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, petitioner calls in question the legality and the correctness of the order of the third respondent-the Munsiff and JMFC, K. R. Pet, Mandya district dated 21-12-1996 in Election Petition No. 8 of 1994. Annexure-A is the copy of the said order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are:petitioner C. Ramappa and first respondent-B. Bolegowda were elected to Bookinakere Grama Panchayat, K. R. Pet Taluk, Mandya district in the election held in the month of December 1993. It is undisputed that the petitioner was elected from the Modur-1 General constituency and the first respondent from Bookinakere-3 Constituency reserved for Backward Class. The second respondent called for a meeting on 18-3-1994 for the election of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of bookinakere Grama Panchayat. It is also undisputed that the office of adhyaksha was reserved for Backward Class and the office of Upadhyaksha for general-women. In the meeting held on 18-3-1994, the petitioner who had been elected from the General Constituency claiming to be the person belonging to Backward Classes contested the election. First respondent is the other candidate. In the said election the petitioner having secured 9 votes as against 7 votes secured by the first respondent, was declared elected as Adhyaksha of the said Bookinakere grama Panchayat. Petitioner in support of his claim that he belongs to backward Classes appear to have produced Caste and Income Certificate dated 7-3-1994 issued by the Tahsildar, Bookinakere.

(3.) THEREAFTER the first respondent filed Election Petition No. 8 of 1994 in the Court of Munsiff, K. R. Pet (Prescribed Judicial Officer under section 45 (2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993) challenging the election of the petitioner as Adhyaksha of Bookinakere Panchayat. First respondent pleaded that the petitioner gets an annual income of Rs. 30,000/-, he has 150 fruit yielding coconut trees and as such he does not belong to Backward Classes. The petitioner having made false allegations has obtained the Certificate and therefore, he was not entitled in law to contest the election to the office of Adhyaksha as that was reserved for Backward Classes. The petitioner resisted the petition contending inter alia that the first respondent is an agriculturist besides being a Contractor and Vice-President of P. S. S. K. Sugar Factory and his annual income exceeds Rs. 1 lakh a year from all sources and he is an income-tax assessee and as such he could not have contested for the election as against a seat reserved for Backward Classes. He further contended that his income is only Rs. 3,400/- and at no time exceeded rs. 30,000/ -. It is also his case that before contesting, he has produced the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The second respondent who is the Returning Officer also contested the proceedings contending that the petitioner was permitted to contest in view of the certificate produced by him. Further contends that since no objection was raised for his candidature, either by the 1st respondent or by any other member present at the meeting, it is not correct to say that there is improper receipt of nomination.