P H PUJAR Vs. KANTHI RAJASHEKHAR KIDIYAPPA
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
March 05,2002
P.H.PUJAR
Appellant
VERSUS
KANTHI RAJASHEKHAR KIDIYAPPA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
TAPEN SIGA VS. DIKTO YEKAR [LAWS(GAU)-2019-2-115] [REFERRED TO]BHABANI PAKREY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
SUK LAL VS. PREM KUMAR BANDHE AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2006-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
HARDEV SINGH VS. HARDAYAL [LAWS(P&H)-2007-4-183] [REFERRED TO]
M CHINNASAMY VS. K C PALANISAMY [LAWS(SC)-2003-11-54] [RELIED ON]
VIJAY SINGH VS. RAJDEEP SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2023-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
R.PANDIAMMAL VS. S.MUTHULAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
Ramavtar Budhouwa VS. Susheela Singh [LAWS(MPH)-2006-5-135] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL VS. INCHARGE DISTRICT JUDGE/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
MANGLA RAM VS. SITAL DASS [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
RUGADA DEVI VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AZAMGARH [LAWS(ALL)-2009-2-142] [REFERRED TO]
INDULEKHA VS. PREETHA KUMARI [LAWS(KER)-2010-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
PEDDIREDDY VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ALIAS CHITTIBABU VS. ELECTION TRIBUNAL CUM PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE [LAWS(APH)-2009-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH UNIYAL VS. OM GOPAL [LAWS(UTN)-2008-3-199] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA RANI BHARALUA VS. KABITA GOGOI [LAWS(GAU)-2010-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
OM PARKASH SONI VS. NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU [LAWS(P&H)-2010-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
PEDDIREDDY VEKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY VS. DANISETTY BABU RAO [LAWS(APH)-2008-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
LAGUDU ANURADHA VS. GORREPOTU CHELLAYYAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2003-12-112] [REFERRED TO]
Rafik Khan VS. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority [LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
BIDESH SINGH VS. MADHU SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
Chadipiralla Narayana Reddy VS. Ponnapureddy Rama Subba Reddy [LAWS(APH)-2003-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
SAHAB RAM VS. BHAGWAN [LAWS(P&H)-2009-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
LALKUNWAR KORI VS. ARYA LALARAM [LAWS(MPH)-2011-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Y. K. Sabharwal, J. -
(1.)The appellant was elected as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly by a margin of 138 votes. The total votes polled were 88,353. At the final counting it was found that the election petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) secured 40,280 votes whereas the appellant secured 40,418 votes. The ballot papers rejected as invalid were 3872.
(2.)Respondent No. 1 who was defeated by a margin of 138 votes challenged the election of the appellant in a petition filed in the High Court under S. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). A declaration was sought that the election of the appellant was void on the grounds of improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes as also for non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the orders made thereunder as set out in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of Cl. (d) of sub-section (1) of S. 100 of the Act. According to respondent No. 1, 59 ballot papers were also found to be missing. One of the allegations of respondent No. 1 in the election petition was that the number of ballot papers rejected could have been counted in his favour and his counting agents were not provided with any opportunity to inspect the ballot papers that had been rejected by the Returning Officer.
(3.)In all, six issues were framed. One of the issues was "whether the petitioner proves that the counting of the votes was not done in accordance with the rules."
(2.)Respondent No. 1 who was defeated by a margin of 138 votes challenged the election of the appellant in a petition filed in the High Court under S. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). A declaration was sought that the election of the appellant was void on the grounds of improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes as also for non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the orders made thereunder as set out in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of Cl. (d) of sub-section (1) of S. 100 of the Act. According to respondent No. 1, 59 ballot papers were also found to be missing. One of the allegations of respondent No. 1 in the election petition was that the number of ballot papers rejected could have been counted in his favour and his counting agents were not provided with any opportunity to inspect the ballot papers that had been rejected by the Returning Officer.
(3.)In all, six issues were framed. One of the issues was "whether the petitioner proves that the counting of the votes was not done in accordance with the rules."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.