See Full Document Text
(cid:315)(cid:175)ೇಷ (cid:170)ಾಜ(cid:205) ಪ(cid:294)(cid:206)(cid:144)ೆ
¨sÁUÀ – 4 01 , 2025 ( , 10, , ೧೯೪7) . 770
Part – IV BENGALURU, MONDAY 01, DECEMBER, 2025 ( MARGASHIRA, 10, SHAKAVARSHA, 1947) No. 770
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS SECRETARIAT (ELECTIONS)
NOTIFICATION
No. DPAR 37 CHUTHAA 2025, Bengaluru, Dated: 01st December 2025.
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
Dated: 28th October, 2025
Kartika 06, 1947 (Saka)
NOTIFICATION
No. 82/KT-LC/05/2022/2025-BE :- In pursuance of Section 106 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission hereby publishes the Order dated :
16.07.2025 of the High Court of Karnataka in ‘Election Petition No.05 of 2022, Shri Raghu
R @ Raghu Kautilya vs Shri Manje Gowda C.N., Shri D.Thimmaiah and Others’, calling in
question the election of Shri Manje Gowda C.N, and Shri D. Thimmaiah as Members of the
Karnataka Legislative Council from Mysore Local Authorities’ Constituency.
(1)IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ELECTION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAGHU R @ RAGHUKAUTILYA
S/O LATE RANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/A NO.71, SRIRANGA,
CHAMUNDI VIHAR LAYOUT
NAZARBAD, MYSURU-570010
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B, AND
SRI.VIDYAR.GOWDA,ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SHRI MANJE GOWDA C N
S/OLATE NANJUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/ANO.1, 9THBLOCK, BEML LAYOUT
MYSURU-570023
2. SHRI D THIMMAIAH
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/A NO.1448, SANJERAVI ROAD
BEHIND JAGADAMBA PETROL BUNK
KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSURU-570023.
3. THE RETURNING
OFFICER MYSURU LOCAL
BODIES COUNCIL
CONSTITUTENCY
AND THEDEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU - 570 005.
4. SHRI VATAL NAGARAJ
S/O LATE MADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARSR/A NO.329, RMV IISTAGE
BENGALURU-560 094.
5. SRI.GURULINGAIAH
S/O DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/ANO.340, MULLURU VILLAGE
SARGOORU, HD KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 121.
6. SRI.KC BASAVARAJASWAMY
S/O LATE CHANNABASAVADEVARU
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/ANO.53, BASAVA SHRI NILAYA
BHAVANINAGAR
NEAR JP NAGAR RING ROAD
MYSURU – 570 031.
7. SRI.MANJUNATH R
S/O LATE RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/A NO.69, 4TH STAGE
GOKULAM, MANJUNATHAPURA
MYSURU-570 020.
…RESPONDENTS
(BYSRI.JAYAKUMAR.S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MAHAMAD TAHIR A., AND
SRI.VARUNJ.PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R-1
SRI. DHANUSH MENON AND
SMT.LEELA P.DEVADIGA,ADVOCATES FOR R-2
SRI. Y.H. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3
SRI.VISHWANATHKANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-6
VIDE ORDER DATED:18.07.2022, NOTICE TO R-4,R-5 & R-7 IS
HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS ELECTION PETITION IS PRESENTED UNDER SECTION 81 OF
THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951, BY PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS ANDSET ASIDE THE ELECTION OF RESPONDENTS 1
AND 2 TO THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL FROM THE 20
MYSURU LOCAL BODIES COUNCIL CONSTITUENCY.
THIS PETITION ISBEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.04.2025
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THECOURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:-CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.R.KRISHNAKUMAR
CAV ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the
Election of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to Karnataka Legislative
Council from the 20 Mysuru Local Bodies Council Constituency
and for declaration that the petitioner was duly elected to fill the
seat of the Karnataka Legislative Council from the said
Constituency and for other reliefs.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written
statement and contested the petition. In addition thereto,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed two applications i.e.,
I.A.No.2/2022 and I.A.No.3/2022 seeking rejection of the Election
Petition on the ground that there was no cause of action and that
the petition was barred by limitation. The petitioner has filed his
objections to the applications and contends that the same are liable
to be dismissed.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted their respective
nominations on 23.11.2021 to contest the Biennial Elections to the
Karnataka Legislative Council from 20 Mysuru Local BodiesConstituency.While the petitioner was the candidate sponsored by
Bharatiya Janata Party, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were sponsored
by Janata Dal (Secular) and Indian National Congress,
respectively. Respondent No.3 is the Returning Officer and
respondent Nos.4 to 7 are the other candidates, who conducted the
Election.
4. Pursuant to respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitting their
nominations, petitioner opposed the said nomination papers filed
by them and raised objections. Respondent No.3 – Returning
Officer notified respondent Nos.1 and 2 about the objections filed
by petitioner to their nomination and permitted them to file their
objections and after hearing all parties, respondent No.3 –
Returning Officer over-ruled/rejected the objections filed by the
petitioner vide orders dated 24.11.2021 and 25.11.2021,
respectively. Accordingly, after accepting the nomination of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 by over-ruling/rejecting the objections
raised by the petitioner, the Election results were declared in which
respondent Nos.1 and 2 secured 1st and 2nd positions and were
consequently declared elected and the petitioner lost the Elections.Aggrieved by the impugned Election of respondent Nos.1 and 2,
petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and
learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on
I.A.Nos.2/2022 and 3/2022 and perused the material on record.
6. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged
in the applications, I.A.Nos.2/2022 and 3/2022 and referring to the
material on record, the respective learned Senior counsel for both
respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly submit that there was no cause of
action for the petition and the same was liable to be rejected. It was
submitted that upon the petitioner filing his objections to the
nominations submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2, they submitted
their respective replies and necessary documents in support of the
nomination including affidavits etc., were filed by respondent Nos.1
and 2 in compliance of Form-26, which were accepted by the
Returning Officer, who rejected/over ruled the objections of the
petitioner and accepted the nominations of respondent Nos.1 and
2. It was submitted that apart from fact that the petition averments
do not make out constitute or set out material facts for the purpose
of seeking setting aside of the Elections of respondent Nos.1and2, the alleged deficiency/defects pointed out by the petitioner did
not materially or substantially affect the Election results and as
such, there was no cause of action for the petitioner to file the
present petition, which is liable to be rejected. It was submitted that
the declaration of results of the Election were on 14.12.2021 and
the present petition filed on 14.03.2022 beyond the prescribed
period of 45 days from the date of Election was barred by limitation
underSection81oftheRepresentationofthePeopleAct,1950(for short
“the R.P.Act ”) and the Election Petition is liable to be rejected on
this ground also. In support of their submissions, learned Senior
counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 placed reliance upon the
following decisions:
i) Kanimozi Karunanidhi Vs. A.Santhana Kumar – 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 573
ii) Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar–
(2009) 9 SCC 310
iii) Frost International Limited Vs. Milan Developers &
Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – (2022) 8 SCC 633.
iv) Dahiben Vs.Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali & Ors.–(2020) 7
SCC 366.7. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
would reiterate the various contentions urged in the Statement of
Objections to I.A.Nos.2/2022 and 3/2022 and submits that there is
no merit in the applications and that the same are liable to be
rejected. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner places reliance upon the following decisions:
i) Kisan Shankar Kathore Vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant and
others – (2014) 14 SCC 162
ii) Krishna moorthy Vs. Sivakumar and others – (2015) 3
SCC 467
iii) Lok Prahari Through its General Secretary S.N.Shukla Vs.
Union of India and others–(2018)4SCC699
iv) Resurgence IndiaV s. Election Commission of India and
another – (2014) 14 SCC 189
v) Ashraf Kokkur V. K.V.Abdul Khader and Others–(2015) 1
SCC 129
vi) Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and
others – (2012) 7 SCC 788
vii) Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, dated 21.10.2022
(Apex Court)8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
9. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be
necessary to reiterate that for the purpose of considering an
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of a
plaint/Election Petition, it is only the plaint/petition averments along
with documents that would be relevant and germane and not the
defence put forth by the defendants/respondents in their written
statements. In this context, a perusal of the petition averments will
indicate that it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the
affidavits in Form No.26 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 were
defective and incomplete and many columns were left blank, which
amounted to non-disclosure of information by them. It is alleged by
the petitioner that the details of immovable properties belonging to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their family members, details of
criminal cases, details of criminal antecedents, details of facebook
accounts and educational qualifications and source of income had
not been mentioned and elaborated by respondent Nos.1 and 2,
whose nomination was wrongly accepted by respondent No.3-
Returning Officer.10. Per contra, respondent Nos.1 and 2 contend that the
petitioner had deliberately suppressed material facts by not making
averments in relation to rectified affidavits filed by them pursuant to
objections to their nominations being raised by the petitioner. It was
contended that after correctly and properly perusing the affidavits,
rectified affidavits and other documents submitted by respondent
Nos.1 and 2, both before and after the objections raised by the
petitioner, respondent No.3 – Returning Officer had rejected the
objections of the petitioner and accepted the nomination of the
petitioner by passing detailed orders in this regard dated
24.11.2021 and 25.11.2021 pursuant to which respondent Nos.1
and 2 secured the highest votes and were accordingly declared as
elected, in accordance with law.
11. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the various
allegations and claim made by the petitioner in the present Election
Petition had already been urged/raised by him before the Returning
Officer, who had expressly over ruled the same vide orders dated
24.11.2021 and 25.11.2021, which are as hereunder:“Orderdated24.11.2021
B.J.P.Candidate filed objections to the Affidavit filed by
JDS Candidate yesterday. However, at 10am on 24.11.2021,
the J.D.(S) candidate filed afresh affidavit. In view of this, the
B.J.P. Candidate withdraws the earlier objection as not
pressed and requested for fresh affidavit filed by JDS
Candidate at 10 a.m. on 24.11.2021 to be uploaded to District
Election Officers’ website, so that he can file fresh objections.
He takes shelter under natural justice and that an opportunity
should be accorded to him.JDS candidate however insists
that scrutiny should be completed immediately.
Heard, in the interest of natural justice, opportunity
accorded for filing objection by B.J.P. Candidate at 5 p.m. on
24.11.2021.
24.11.2021
B.J.P. Candidates agent and proposer submitted
written objection at 5-05 pm with respect to fresh affidavit filed
by JDS Candidate at 10 am on 24.11.2021.The JDS
candidate filed a fresh rebuttal in writing.
At 5-26 pm, B.J.P. candidate’s agent and proposer
submitted a fresh objection letter including an additional part,
same is place in file. The JDS candidate at 5-37 pm has filed
a rebuttal in writing.
REPRSENTATIVEOFB.J.P.ORALSUBMISSION
(1) Candidate in Para-B had mentioned in (3)
Chamundeshwari Legislative Assembly Constituency and in(4) Janathadal Jathyatitha and it gives the impression that
election is from Vidhana Soudha Constitutency and not from
Mysuru Local Constituency election.
(2) In Part-A, b(i) at extent (total measurement – in Acres)
it is blank in columns of wife and dependent-1.
(3) In Para-A, b(ii) at investment in the form of
development, construction etc., dependent-1 column has
been left blank.
(4) With respect to educational qualification only First P.U.C.
has been mentioned, course, college and year has not been
mentioned.
(5) Moreover, he has not disclosed facebook account.
Therefore, nomination of said candidate may be rejected.
Representative of JDS Candidate
1. With Chamundeshwari Vidhana Sabha constituency, my
candidate has furnished personal details as of today.
Even address mentioned was of that in Epic Card.
2. With respect to Part-A, b(i) at extent (total measurement in
Acres), I submit that wife and dependent 1 of candidate
don’t have any agricultural land and it has clearly been
furnished at Para-A, b(i) under Agricularual land, Place/s,
Survey Number/s.
3. With respect to Para-A, b(ii), there is no non-agricultural
property in the name of dependent and same has beenfurnished at Para-A, b(ii) under the head Non-Agricultural
Land, Place/s, Sy.No/s.
Hand book for elections to the Council of States and State
Legislative Councils in Chapter VI, 10(xii) states that, if the
prescribed affidavit has been filed, but are found or
considered to be defective or containing false information, the
nomination should NOT be rejected on the ground. Moreover
it’s a purely technical objection and not substantive and hence
cannot be sustained.
Point 2:In Para-A, b(i) at extent (total extent – Acres) blank
columns of wife & dependent-1 was the objection. The
representative of JDS Candidate has convincingly submitted
that wife and dependent 1 of Candidate don’t have any
agricultural land and it has been clearly furnished at Para-A
b(i) under agricultural land, place/s, Sy.No.(s).His argument
that since there was no agricultural land in favour of his wife
and his dependent 1 and hence there was blank space in
extent seems logically sustainable Text cannot be seen out of
context. The whole objective of the Affidavit is to give effect to
fundamental rights of Citizens of India under Article19(1)(a) of
Constitution of India to ensure citizens have the necessary
information at the time of filing information so that they can
use the information to be held to be valid. It is always safer,
therefore, to be comparatively more liberal overtaking minor
technical or clerical errors rather than rejecting on technical
grounds. On the writ of the above material, objection 2 is not
sustainable in the eye and spirit of the law in this regard.Point3:Objection was that in Para-A,b(ii) at“Any Investment
on land in the form of development, construction, etc. – 1
column has been left blank. The JDS candidate affirms that
there is no non-agricultural property in the name of dependent
and same has been furnished. At Part-A, b(ii) under the head
Non-agricultural Land : Place/s, Sy.Nos., since there was non
non agrilcutural land, there was no suppression of any
information on developing it. His defence is sustainable. The
same explanation given by the (R.O.) at Point 2 applies to
Point 3 as well.
Point 4:With respect to educational qualification, the
explanation of JDS candidate is self-explanatory and hence
sustainable and objection is over ruled.
Point 5: With respect to Facebook account also, the
explanation of JDS Candidate is self-explanatory and hence
sustainable and objection is overruled.”
Order dated 25.11.2021
Oral Submission of BJP representative
Point No.1: They have mentioned PAN number “reè”for Smt.
Meera Bai.She is a retired Government Official and could
have filed income tax,there will be a PAN Card and its now
Mandatory for citizens who transact with banks to have PAN
Card, not furnishing PAN Card amounts to withholding of
information from citizens.
Point No.2: They have in part B in Sy.No.9 column 1 & 2
liabilities to the bank and other financial institutions to the sumof Rs.5,66,66,726/- and Rs.7,35,73, 000/- respectively
reference drawn to relevant paras in resurgence India V/s ECI
case and Allahabad HC judgement in Mahendra Nath Rai Vs.
Returning Officer.
Point No.3: Once scrutiny has started, Returning Officer
cannot enable them to file a fresh affidavit and blanks cannot
be filled.
Representative of INC:
Point 1: At Part A (4) its clearly mentioned as “reè”so its
clearly filled whereas objection is that we should have filled as
“PANCard not issued ’it means same in common parlance
Details about Smt. Meera Bai’s PANCard and bank account
are beyond the scope of this enquiry as it requires evidence
and counter evidence.
Point No.2: In Part A, 8(1) deals with only banks
andfinancialinstitutionsPartBSl.No.9,dealswithbanks,financial
institutions and others.
Point 3: With respect to blanks, Part A, (b)(1) sub question 2,
its already answered as ‘No’ in the main question and since
its already mentioned as not having agricultural property,
whether that property is by inheritance or not, it not a
substantial defect and material defect. Also for blanks,
opportunity has not been accorded to me to fill up the blanks
and therefore, I may be given opportunity to file a rectified
affidavit or to fill in the blanks in the current affidavit. Attention
is drawn to chapter VI of RO’ s hand book of ECI.9.1,6,9.3Power of R.O. to reject an application which has blanks is
absolute, but I should be afforded an opportunity.
Attention has been drawn to Para22 in page212, Para
(iv) Page 216, Para(v) in page 217, Para 5 in Page 248, Para
43 in page 192 to the booklet of case citations appended to
his defence statement. Even if its admitted that objections
raised one true, they are not guidelines and judgments of
Hon’ble S.C.
Representative of BJP:
1. PartA(9A) states that Sm.t Meera Bai is gettinge v’ÈwÛv³9e’£’
Which means she is a retired Govt. Employee.
2. Contradictory information has been furnished in the
affidavit with respect to loans from banks, financial institutions
and individuals. Attention is drawn to page 248 point (2) of
citations booklet provided by representative of INC, so it’s not
a curable defect.
3. With respect to Blanks, R.O. can get it filled in the affidavit
& its left to the discretion of the R.O. But in so far as affidavit
already filled, it cannot be amended as it’s a material defect
and right of citizen to know all information. Attention has been
drawn to page 8 in last 4 lines of citation book provided by
representative of INC. Page 217, Para (vi)(vii) attention drawn
to citation book provided by representative of INC.
So, non disclose of information is a material fact, there
is suspicion of material facts and it amounts to false affidavit.I do agree that on technical grounds, affidavit should not be
rejected.
Representative of INC:
1. R.O. handbook of Ecl Chapter VI 9.3 with respect to loans
and liabilities, further my case, Page 83 last 4 lines of my
citation book, that judgment is about assets and liabilities of
elected representatives and gazetted officers and not
connected with Nomination process. Page 217, Para (v)(vi)
are subject to para iv) of my citation book.
Representative of BJP:
Page217,Para iv to be read with clarity.
No. further submissions by both parties.
I have gone through the written objections filed by the
BJP Candidate on 24.11.2021 and 25.11.2021.I have gone
through the defence statement submitted by the
representative of INC Candidate. I have heard the oral
submissionsofboththepartiesatlengthabout4pointsraised in the
objections.I hereby proceed to deal with them.
Point 1 & 2: Point 1 &2 are inter related andhence I will deal
with them together. The basic premise of objector is that non
disclosure of information is a material facts and it amounts to
false affidavit whereas the basic premise of defence is that
this issue is behind the scope of this authority and that
necessary information has already been filled in the affidavit.I am relying on chapter V of returning officers
handbook of ECI and quoting from the book.
“Filing of false affidavit in form 26.Now the affidavit is in
form 26 under Section 33A of the representation of the people
act, 1951, making false declaration, concealing of information
in the affidavit would be converted under Section 125A of the
Act. Under Section 125A, there is no stipulation that
complaints under that section have to be made by the public
servant concerned (in this case the R.O.) Therefore, it would
be open to any aggrieved person to move petition before the
appropriate court of competent jurisdiction with petition for
action under section 125A in the case of any false declaration
or concealing of information in the affidavit in From 26.
Therefore, it will be no longer necessary under the
Cr.P.C. for the returning officer to move the competent court
in relation to any complaint about a false affidavit. The
complainant himself can be the complainant before the court
as well in the event of complaints about false statement in the
affidavit in form 26, the complainant can be informed that it
would be open for him to move the appropriate court of lawfor
action under section 125A of the R.P. Act 1951"
It is thus clear that the claim of the defence is sustainable
with respect to the fact that the issues are beyond the scope
of this authority. Moreover the complainant has an alternative
remedy available in law to approach a court of competent
jurisdiction for redressal of his grievances, if any,therefore objections with respect to point 1 and point 2 are
overruled.
Point 3: With respect to point 3, the basic premise of the
objector is that there are blanks in the Affidavit and that the
defence cannot file a fresh affidavit, now since scrutiny has
already started. The objector also concedes that with respect
to existing blanks, the R.O. can get it filled in the affidavit and
that its left to the discretion of the R.O. but that is sofar as
Affidavit already filled, it cannot be amended as its a material
defect and hence incurable at this point of time.
The basic premises of the defence is that, information with
respect to main question at Part A, B (i) regarding ownership
of agricultural land has already been answered as 'No' for his
wife and defendants and hence, it is naturally flows from the
above that the answer to the subquestion"ಸ.(cid:3425)
e◌ಾ,xತೕ◌ೆ",ºËz’Ä9¾’vÁr®èisalso'No'.Moreover the point that R.O.
had not accord them a reminder which would have given them
sufficient opportunity to fill in the blanks and hence seek an
opportunity to either fill a fresh affidavit or to fill in the blanks in
the existing affidavit. they also point out that the objectors
themselves have conceded that they can fill in the blanks in
the existing affidavit.
Having heard both the parties on point No. 3, it is my
contention that the fundamental purpose of filing the affidavit
is to ensure that the electors have access to necessary
information about the candidates so as to make an informed
choice on whom to elect with respect to Point 3,theinformation filled by INC candidate about lack of agricultural
land in the name of his wife and defendants means that the
answer to the sub question is also 'no'. This can be depicted
by pure common sense. So there is no non disclosure or
suppression of information in this case. So the benefit of
doubt has to be given to the INC candidate as the defect is
merely technical and no substantive. Moreover, the R.O. by
oversight could not give there a reminder to fill in the blanks in
the affidavit, so its true that to serve the ends of natural
justice, an opportunity can be accorded to them as through
incomplete affidavits are liable to be rejected leading to
rejection of nomination paper on the ground of not filing up all
column in the affidavit, however in the instant case, since
reminder was not given it does not became a cause for
outright rejection of the nomination. Moreover, the objector
has also conceded that the R.O. in his discretion can decide
on it. I have in the scrutiny proceedings asked the INC
candidate about his answer for all fill in the blanks in the
affidavit and they have answered that their answer is 'No'. It is
taken on record. However, the contention of the INC
Candidate to file a fresh affidavit at this stage is categorically
rejected representation of People Act 1950 & 1951 section
36(4) states that " The returning officer shall not reject any
nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of
a substantial character. I am hereby satisfied that, the above
mentioned defect is merely a technical defect and not a
substantial defect. Hence considering the special facts and
circumstances of this case, objection is over ruled.Point 4: The objection that in part B column II, constituency
number, name and state has been mentioned as local body
constituency, Karnataka Bank instead of his residential
constituency can be considered flimsy as per chapter VI, 9.3
of R.O. handbook and hence this objection is over ruled.
In view of the aforementioned paras, the objections
raised by the B.J.P. candidate are hereby overruled.”
12. The aforesaid orders passed by respondent No.3 had
attained finality and had not been challenged by the petitioner. In
addition thereto, respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed rectified
affidavits as well as replies to the objections raised by the
petitioner, which were taken into account by respondent No.3-
Returning Officer, who scrutinized and accepted the nominations of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 by over-ruling the objections of the
petitionerbyfollowingtheprocedureprescribedinSection36ofthe
R.P. Act. Under these circumstances, the various allegations and
claim made by the petitioner regarding defects and lacunae in the
nomination papers had already stood rectified by respondent Nos.1
and 2, whose nominations were accepted by respondent No.3-
Returning Officer, pursuant to which they were declared elected
upon securing/obtaining highest number of votes, there by leadingto the sole conclusion that there is no cause of action for the
present petition, which is liable to be rejected.
13. A perusal of the averments made in the petition in
which the petitioner has pointed out various defects/deficiencies
and lacunae in Form No.26 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 will
clearly indicate that the same cannot be said to be
material/substantial in nature so as to affect the results of the
elections; as stated supra, in the light of the Returning Officer
followingtheprocedureprescribedunderSection36oftheR.P.Act and
notifying respondent Nos.1 and 2 about the objections raised by
the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their replies as well as
rectified affidavits, which were scrutinized and perused by the
Returning Officer, who correctly and properly over-ruled and
rejected the objections raised by the petitioner and accordingly,
accepted the nominations submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Despite the said orders of the Returning Officer, the petitioner
seeks to re-agitate the very same objections by alleging lacunae
and defects /deficiency in the nomination papers, a perusal of
which clearly establishes that the same cannot be said to be
material or substantial so as to substantially vary or alter the results
of theElections and consequently, the present petition does not
disclose a cause of action and is liable to be rejected on this
ground also.
14. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel
for respondent Nos.1 and 2, since the subject Election results
were declaredon14.12.2021,it was incumbent upon the petitioner
to file the present petition within a period of 45 days from that
day as contemplated under Section 81 of the R.P. Act and the
present petition undisputedly filed on 14.03.2022 is clearly
beyond the prescribed period of 45 days; in this context,
petitioner contends that he is entitled to benefit of exclusion of
time on account of the 2nd wave of Covid-19 pandemic exigency
since the Apex Court excluded the period of limitation for
institution of all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings including
filing of the present petition in M.A.Nos.665/0021, 21/2022 and
29/2022 in Suo Moto W.P.(C) No.3/2020 dated 10.01.2022. In
view of the said order passed by the Apex Court extending the
period of limitation before judicial and quasi judicial fora up to
28.02.2022, it cannot be said that the present petition is barred
by limitation as contended by the respondents 1 and 2 whose
contention in this regard cannot be accepted. However, having
regard to the findings recorded by meHerein before that there is no cause of action for the present
petition, I am of the view that the petition is liable to be rejected and
consequently, dismissed, since the same does not disclose / make
out a cause of action.
15. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by both sides are
concerned, the same were rendered in the facts and circumstances
of the said cases and in view of the factual matrix obtaining in the
instant case, which clearly demonstrates that there is no cause of
action for the petition and that the same is barred by limitation, the
said judgments are not elaborately dealt with for the purpose of the
present order.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am
of the view that the application, I.A.Nos.2/2022 and 3/2022 filed by
respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively deserve to be allowed and
the present Election Petition deserves to be rejected and
consequently, dismissed.
17. In the result,I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) I.A.Nos.2/2022and3/2022 are here by allowed.R.N.I. No. KARBIL/2001/47147 POSTAL REGN. No. RNP/KA/BGS/2202/2017-19
Licensed to post without prepayment WPP No. 297
(ii) The Election Petition in E.P.No.5/2022 is hereby rejected
and consequently dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNAKUMAR)
JUDGE
By Order,
( SUMAN KUMAR DAS)
SECRETARY
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
By order and in the name of the
Governor of Karnataka
( MADHU A.C )
Under Secretary to Government
D.P.A.R (Elections)
ಮುದ(cid:206)ಕರು (cid:178)ಾಗೂ ಪ(cid:206)(cid:144)ಾಶಕರು:- ಸಂಕಲ(cid:163)ಾ(cid:297)(cid:144)ಾ(cid:312)ಗಳ(cid:133), ಕ(cid:163)ಾ(cid:143)ಟಕ (cid:170)ಾಜ(cid:205)ಪತ(cid:206), ಸ(cid:144)ಾ(cid:143)(cid:312) (cid:144)ೇಂದ(cid:206) ಮುದ(cid:206)(cid:158)ಾಲಯ, (cid:166)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:136)ರು