PATIL PANDURANGA VENKANAGOUDA Vs. HORATTI BASAVARAJ SHIVALINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Election Petition under Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the petitioner has challenged the election and declaration of election of the first respondent to be illegal, null and void as well as has sought the setting aside of the election dated 25-6-1998. The petitioner in the election petition has claimed the following reliefs;declare that the first respondent is holding Office of profit under the State as mentioned in the election petition. In other words the first respondent has been holding the Office of profit under the State on the material date and hence his nomination paper was illegal and was improperly accepted by the second respondent. The Returning Officer, Karnataka West Teachers Constituency and Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and consequently the petitioner has sought for declaration that the election of the first respondent to the Legislative Council be declared as null and void and be set aside. The petitioner has prayed for grant of such other reliefs as this Court deems fit.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell are; That with reference to the Karnataka West Teachers Constituency, the election was notified. The date for filing nomination papers was 4-6-1998 and the date for scrutiny was fixed as 9-6-1998. The petitioner as well as the first respondent filed their nomination papers. The first respondent filed his nomination paper and the petitioner filed his objections to the nomination filed by the 1st respondent. On the date of scrutiny, the Returning Officer rejected the objections filed by the petitioner against the 1st respondent's nomination and accepted the nomination paper filed by the 1st respondent vide order dated June 9th, 1998 opining that the objections raised by the petitioner to the effect that the 1st respondent was holding Office of profit under the Government was frivolous and not maintainable. The Returning Officer opined that the 1st respondent was not disqualified from contesting the election. The first respondent vide declaration of the result of election, under Section 66 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was declared to have been duly elected in the election held on 25-6-1998 to fill the seat in Karnataka Legislative Council from the Karnataka West Teachers Constituency, one Member retiring on 30-6-1998, on the expiry of his term of Office. This declaration was made by the Returning Officer, Karnataka West Teachers Constituency and Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum, on 27-6-1998. The first respondent having been declared as elected the petitioner, who was one of the defeated candidates has come up before this Court by filing this Election Petition under Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 claiming reliefs as mentioned above.

(3.) THE petitioner in the election petition has asserted that the first respondent i. e. , the elected candidate has been employed as Physical Education Teacher in Lemington High School at Hubli, which is run by the Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation. The petitioner's case is that Lemington High School referred to above has been a Grant-in-Aid School. According to the petitioner on the date of nomination as well as on the date of scrutiny of the nomination paper, the 1st respondent has been working and was employed as Physical Education Teacher in the Lemington High School at Hubli. The petitioner has further alleged that the salary was being paid by Government, Service Conditions governed by the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and the Grant-in-Aid Code for Secondary Schools Conduct Rules 1966. The election petitioner's case is that as the first respondent was serving as a Teacher/physical Education Teacher in the Lemington High School, Hubli, run by the Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation, amounted to his holding of Office of profit under the State Government on the material dates referred to above and as such the 1st respondent i. e. , the elected candidate suffered disqualification in terms of Article 191 of the Constitution of India and as such the acceptance of the nomination paper of the first respondent and subsequent election of first respondent as candidate was illegal, null and void on the ground of disqualification provided under Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. This is the only ground on which election of the 1st respondent has been challenged.