T K ABDUL SATTAR Vs. COURT OF MUNSIFF KOLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court while doubling the correctness of the decision in Ningappa Rangappa Sonnavalkar v. The Munsiff, Gokak and others, ((1968) 2 Mys.L.J. 620.) has referred the following question to a Full Bench for opinion "Whether in an election petition filed by a candidate at an election to a Village Panchayat under the Karnataka, Village Panchaya and Local Boards Act, 1959, a recount of votes can be granted by the Munsiff without a preliminary inquiry in which he is prima -facie satisfied that in order to decide a dispute between the parties, inspection of ballot papers and recount thereof are necessary? WR 10050178.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts are these: Ih the election held on 8th, July, 1978 to the, Tayalur Group Panchayat, the petitioner and four others were declared elected. Mumtaz Ahmed- respondent-3-was one of the defeated candidates. He challenged the election of the petitioner before the Munsiff at Kolar under Section 13 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 called shortly "the Act" on the ground, among others that there was no proper counting of votes by the Election Officer. The case was set down for enquiry on 25th August, 1978. But on 14th August 1978 respondent-3 filed, an application to advance the case from 25th to 16th August, with a request to get all the votes for scrutiny and computation. The case was accordingly called on 16th August 1978 but was adjourned to 18th August 1978. On 18th, the learned Munsiff after hearing the parties, accepted the request' of respondent -3 and directed the production of ballot box by 21st August, 1978. The ballot box was accordingly produced before him. On 21st August, 1978, the learned Munsiff scrutinised and recounted the votes in the presence of advocates and the parties. In the recounting, it was found that petitioner and respondent-3 secured equal number of votes, Thereupon, lots were drawn in which respondent-3 was found to be lucky and declared elected. The petitioner challenges the validity of the proceedings taken by the learned Munsiff in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

(3.) This narrative shows that the proceedings before the Munsiff involved a high degree of improvisation. The person who challenged the election of the successful candidate, did not produce even a prima facie evidence to show that there was irregularity in the counting of votes may by the Election Officer. There was not even an affidavit from him in support of the allegations in his petition. He asked the Munsiff to scrutinise and compute the votes recorded in favour of the respective parties. The Munsiff readily accepted the request and ordered a recount, We are not finding fault with the Munsiff. He could not have done better as he was bound by the decision of this Court in N. R. Sonnavalkar's (1) case to which we will refer in detail a moment later-.