M R CHANNARAYAPPA Vs. TAHSILDAR AND RETURNING OFFICER MALUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An otherwise simple case has unnecessarily become complicated calling for determination of an important question that did not arise in the original writ petition itsef. In order to appreciate and answer that and other questions, it is necessary to notice the facts in some detail.

(2.) In the recent general elections.held to the Town municipal Council of Malur, Kolar District, (hereinater ,'referred to as 'the T.M.C.) constituted and functioning under the provisions of the KarnatakaJMunicipalities Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and 13 others were elected as the Councillors of the said T.M.C. On 13-6-1979, respondent No. 1 issued the'calendar of events for holding elections to the office of the President of the T.M.C. specifying the following dates and time for the completion of elections to the said office ; 21-6-1979 before 3-00 pm. Last date for receipt of Nominations ; 24-6-1979 at 11-00 am. Scrutiny of nomination ; 27- 6-1979 before 3-00 pm. Time and date for withdrawal of nominations: 28-6-1979 Date for poll in the {event- of a contest. Before the appointed tinje and .date, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 filed their nominations in the appropriate form prescribed by the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 7965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed under the Act. At the scrutiny of nomination papers, respondent No. 2 objected to the acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that the name of the father of the candidate and his address had not been furnished. Accepting the objection of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 by his order dated 24-6-1979 rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner and the order made by him reads thus ; "Gone through the nomination paper and read openly. Shri A. Nagaraju has objected for having not furnished the particulars like father's name and other particulars. After going through the paper and applying my mind, I made the following decision. In this mainly the name and address are very important. The nomination do not contain the father's name and other particulars. I decided to reject the nomination in view of Rule 6(3) (c). (Sd.) C. L. Puttaswamiah, 24-6.79 at 11-10 In this writ petition presented on 26-6-7979, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order and sought for stay of election scheduled to be-held on 28-6-1979. Some time on the same day, Sri Venkataranga Iyengar, learned counsel for the petitioner, made a special motion before me to take up the case for preliminary hearing on that very day at 2-30 pm. On considering the submissions of Shri Venkataranga lyengar, 1 directed the case to be listed for preliminary hearing on 27-6-1979 at 10-30 am. and therefore the same was fated for preliminary hearing on 27-6-1979 along with the other cases. On 27-6-7979, the above case was taken up for preliminary hearing in its turn by about 72-75 p.m. or so, After hearing Shri Venkataranga Iytngar, I decided to issue rule nisi and an ex parte order of stay sought by the petitioner. At that stage' Shri B.K.Venkatakrishna an Advocate for this Court, suo-motu entered appearance for respondent No. 2 and realising the manifest infirmity in the impugned order, inter-alia submitted to allow the petition and enable the petitioner to contest as a candidate in the elections scheduled to be held on 21-6-1979. In the light of the above, I requested Shri G. R. Nataraj. learned High Court Goverment Pleader who was present in Court, to take notice for respondent No. 1 and argue the matter. Accordingly he took notice for Respondent. 1. I agaitf heard all the learned counsel on all matters and directed the issue-of rule nisi' in the case and stay of elections scheduled to be held on 28-6-1979. In he order, 'I directed a copy to be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner to enable him to deliver the same to respondent No. 1 and another copy to be delivered to Shri Nataraj forthwith. The hearing and dictation of my order in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties was over by 12-45 p.m. or 12-50 p.m. I informally requested Shri Nataraj to appraise the stay order issued to respondent No. 1 on trunk telephone. As directed in the order, the office has delivered copies of the stay order to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader on the same day, without noting time of their delivery.

(3.) The petitioner has urged that the rejection of his nomination paper by respondent No. 1 is not for a defect of a substantial character and is manifestly illegal. In the light of the above, he has sought for quashing the declaration made by respondent No. 1 on 27-6-1979 declaring respondent No 2 as elected.