H T DHANANJAYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein being the contesting candidates (the petitioners 1 and 2 were also the members of the previous committee members) had filed the instant writ petition to quash the order dated 18-2-1999 passed by the respondent 2-the Returning Officer, whereby he had postponed the election indefinitely and further with a prayer that the respondent 2-the Returning officer be directed to hold the election in respect of Kanur constituency (one of the 9 constituencies) by refixing the date of poll to complete the election process in pursuance of the calendar of events issued by him, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition.

(2.) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil. The respondents 1 and 2 are represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri M. N. Ramanjaneya Gowda. The respondent 3-the Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited and the respondent 4-the Ex-President of the respondent 3 having been served with notice had remained absent before Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Patil while taking me through the petition averments and the grounds urged in the petition argued that the respondent 2-the Returning officer having issued the calendar of events at Annexure-A to writ petition had stopped the election by postponing the same to be held on a future date by issuing a public notice dated 18-2-1999, copy as at Annexure-E to writ petition. According to him, there was no good reason for the Returning Officer to do that, particularly, when he had already issued the calendar of events. He had also argued that the Returning Officer was duty bound to complete the entire process as per the schedule set out by him in the calendar of events issued by him.