G N CHANNAMALLA SETTY Vs. RETURNING OFFICER AND AMILDAR GUBBI TALUK GUBBI
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COMMISSIONER,RETURNING OFFICER AND AMILDAR, GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI
Click here to view full judgement.
PADMANABHIAH, J. -
(1.)This is an application filed by the petitioners under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of Writs of Prohibition, Mandamus and Quo Warranto against the respondents in connection with the election held to the Municipal Council at Gubbi on 28th February 1956.
(2.)The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: The petitioners and respondents 3 to 17 are residents of Gubbi Town in Tumkur District. The 1st respondent is the Eeturning Officer and the Amildar of Gubbi, and the 2nd the Commissioner for Local Self-Government; respondents 3 to 17 have been elected to the Municipal Council at Gubbi in the election held on 21-2-1956. Petitioners are stated to be some of the voters of Gubbi Town. Their contention is that the election is illegal and void on various grounds, that the respondents 3 to 17 have no right to sit at Councillors, that they should be prevented from doing so and that the Writs as prayed for are to be issued against them.
(3.)The respondents oppose the application. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for in the petition. It appears to us that there are not sufficient grounds to allow the petition. The election is sought to be challenged as invalid and void on the following grounds:
"1. that two units or areas 15 (a) and 15(b) not contiguous to each other and having different boundaries have been formed into one division as Division No. 15 contrary to the provisions of the Town Municipalities Act; 2. that by allowing only the voters of the scheduled castes to exercise their franchise the 15th Division has been formed into a separate electorate and that this contravenes the provisions of section 9 of the Town Municipalities Act which contemplate only reservation of seats to scheduled castes; 3. that divisions made and boundaries fixed for the election held on 1951-52 have been adopted for 1956 election and that this is contrary to the provisions of section 11 of the Town Municipalities Act which contemplate fresh notification and fresh divisions and fixation of fresh boundaries; 4. that the Eeturning Officer did not stick to the first election calendar issued by him, that fresh election calendars superseding the previous ones have been issued, that the date fixed for publication of copies of notice of candidature has subsequently been postponed or altered, that the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to issue a fresh election calendar which power vests only in the Deputy Commissioner ; and 5. that the Sheristedar received notices of candidature without authority and that, therefore, the election should be held invalid."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.