MAHAMAD GHAUS MURTHUSA SAB DAKANI Vs. IRRADALI ABDULLASA HANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondents 2 and 4 were declared elected to the Town Panchayat Committee of Muddebihal. The first respondent challenged the election on several grounds in Misc. Election Petition No.1 of 1968 before the Munsiff, Muddebihal. Three issues came up for consideration. They are:

(2.) On the first two issues, the learned Munsiff held against the petitioner in the Election Petition. But on the third issue, the learned Munsiff held that there were sufficient grounds for recounting, and on such recounting, set aside the election of the petitioner before us and declared respondens 1, 2 and 3 elected. The resulting position was that the petitioner, who was respondent 3 in the Election Petition, was unseated. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Munsiff, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order of the Munsiff, Muddebihal in Miscellaneous Election Petition No.1 of 1968 and dt.17th January 1969 be quashed.

(3.) Sri Vijayashankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged only one ground to support his contenion that the order of the learned Munsiff is unsustainable. His contention is that having held that the petitioner in the Election Petition has failed to prove that there are sufficient grounds to set aside the election on the several pleas that come within the scope of S.13(3) (A) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act) it was not open to the learned Munsiff to proceed to recount the votes and declare the result of the election on the basis of such recounting, acting under S.13(3) (B) of the Act. This contention is urged before us as the provisions of S.13(3) (B) preclude any acticn being taken under that provision if the grounds urged in the petition come within the scope of S.13(3) (A) of the Act. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Ningappa Rangappa v. Munsiff, Gokak, (1968) 2 Mys.L.J. 620 in support of this contention. To understand the scope of the contention and the applicability of the decision on which reliance is placed, it is necessary to sef out the concerned provisions of law S.13(3) reads as follows :