Judgment :

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) This appeal, under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against the order dated 19.09.2008 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Election Petition No. 4 of 2008 in and by which the High Court upheld the objection of the Registry that there was no proper presentation of the election petition in terms of Section 81 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), consequently dismissed the election petition.

2) Election to Constituency No. 140, Bagepalli, Karnataka Legislative Assembly was held in the General Elections conducted in the State in 2008. Appellant No.1 was the candidate of the CPM party. Appellant No.2 was his election agent. Respondent No.1 is the Returning Officer of Bagepalli Legislative Assembly Constituency. Respondent No.2 is the Congress candidate who has been declared elected in the election held on 10.05.2008. Respondent No.3 is the Observer appointed by the Election Commission of India.

3) According to the appellants, election was held on 10.05.2008 and counting took place on 25.05.2008. Initially, the Media Officer appointed by the Election Commission announced appellant No.1 as the successful candidate and declared him elected. When the election agents and counting agents of appellant No.1 had left the place of counting, an application for re-counting was submitted by the second respondent and thereafter, second respondent was declared elected. The appellants filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Act on various grounds pointing out large-scale irregularities and illegalities committed by respondent-authorities in the voting and the illegalities of allowing the recounting after announcing the declaration of appellant No.1 as elected.

4) On 06.07.2008, the first appellant, through his advocate, Shri Shiva Reddy presented the election petition before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Karnataka. The Registry of the High Court put up an office objection that as the appellants were not present at the time of filing of the election petition, the presentation of the papers were not in accordance with Section 81 of the Act and as such there was no proper filing of the election petition. Based on the office objection, the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court dealing with the election petition and arguments were heard. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge based on the recorded statement of Registrar (Judicial) dated 07.07.2008 that "petitioners were not present while presenting this petition" and finding that it was not a proper presentation in terms of Section 81, dismissed the election petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal before this Court.

5) We have heard Mr. P.R. Ramasesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Dr. Sushil Balwada, learned counsel appearing for the contesting second respondent.

6) Since the election petition was dismissed at the threshold on the alleged ground of improper filing, there is no need to traverse various averments made therein. The only question to be considered by this Court is whether the election petition as presented was in accordance with Section 81 (1) of the Act and whether the High Court was right in dismissing the same as it was not presented by the candidate or elector?

7) Part VI of the Act relates to disputes regarding elections. Chapter II therein speaks about presentation of election petitions to the High Court. Section 80 mandates that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part VI. Section 81 relates to presentation of election petitions which reads thus:

"Presentation of petitions.-- (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101 to the High Court b