Back
1982 Supreme(Kar) 109
Karnataka High Court
S.LINGE GOWDA - Appellant
Versus
CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE - Respondent
Decided On : 05-03-82
W.P. : 23192 of 1980
B.T.PARTHASARATHI, B.V.ACHARYA RAO, L.SRIKANTAIAH, N.SANTOSH HEGDE, V.TARKARAM
The Chancellor's conclusions on election disputes cannot be interfered with by the court, and compliance with statutory requirements is essential in conducting university elections.
Headnote:
Election Dispute - Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 - S. 48 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of S. 48 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 and the Statutes governing the conduct of elections to the University Senate. The court also examined the distinction between Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the limitations of the Chancellor's authority in deciding election disputes.
Fact of the Case:
An election dispute arose between two advocates contesting for a seat in the University of Mysore Senate. The petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 3 on grounds of irregularities in the election process.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's writ petition, holding that the Chancellor's conclusions on the election dispute cannot be interfered with. The court also highlighted illegalities in the conduct of the elections and suggested remedial measures.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the election process, the Chancellor's authority to decide election disputes, and the applicability of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to the election dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Chancellor's conclusions on the election dispute cannot be interfered with by the court. The court also emphasized the need for compliance with statutory requirements in conducting university elections.
Final Decision: The writ petition was rejected, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) AN unfortunate election dispute between two Advocates of this Court practising in the City of Mysore, who contested for one seat of the Senate of the University of mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'the university') from the constituency of regitered grnduates in law, has arisen for determinati 'n, fcr' which purpose, it is necessary to notice, in the first instance, the facts that are not seriously in dispute.
( 2 ) IN response to the calendar of events issued by the Registrar of the University, who was also the Returning Officer, on 1-7-1980 (Annexure, A), the petitioner, respondent 3 and 4, being registered graduates, filed their nominations for election to the senate from the 'law Constituency' before the appointed date and time. But, the pull to the said Constituency only was nott held on 2-8-1980, in obedience to an interim order made by this Court in a writ petition filed by respondent No, 4, and the same was held on 24-8-1980.
( 3 ) THE method of voting adopted was the single transferable vote system and the counting took place on 26-8-1980 in the presence of the candidates or their agents that were present. As none of the candidates secured the required minimum number of votes in the first counting, the process of transfer was resorted to, in which respondent No. 3 secured 287 votes as against 286 votes secured by the petitioner. In that view, the Returning Officer declared respondent No. 3 as duly elected to the senate from the 'law Constituency'.
( 4 ) ON 30-8-1980 the petitioner presented an election petition before the Vice-Chancellor (Annexure L) under S. 48 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (Kar. Act No. 28 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the election of respondent No. 3 to refer the same to the Chancellor for adjudication. Apprehending that the Vice Chan cellor was rot likely to refer his election petition or delay the reference, the petitioner printed a petition on 1-9-1980 before the Chancellor annexing a copy of the election petition presented by him before the Vice-Chancellor, on which the Chancellor initiated the proceedings.
( 5 ) IN his election petition, as originally presented, the petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 3 principally on two grounds and they are : (i) that the relaxation in the production of 'identity cards' at certain centres was not in conformity with the instiuctions dt. 13-7-1980 (Annexure B) that had the force of law ; and (ii) that there was large scale impersonation and various other malpractices resulting in double voting particularly at chennarayapatna and Sharada Vilas Polling centres. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought for the following reliefs :"wherefore, it is prayed that - (i) Hold an enquiry into the conduct of the election held on 24-8-1980 such that all illegal, invalid votes that are counted as valid votes be excluded totally from counting; (ii) Declare that the petitioner is the successful candidate in the election held on 24-8-1980, inasmuch as, on the basis of the valid votes polled in the election i. e. , excluding all invalid votes, the petitioner is deemed to have secured the largest number of votes". In the succeeding para, the petitioner sought for stay and in the last para he sought for general and consequential reliefs.
( 6 ) BELORE the Chancellor, respondent no. 3 fitted his objections denying the allegations of corrupt practices levelled against him and alleged that the petitioner had committed various corrupt practices. He claimed that the allegations of the petitioner, if proved also, would not meterially affect the result of his election for which reason there was no justification to set aside his election and declare the petitioner as duly elected in his place.
( 7 ) ON 17-11-1980 to which date the case was further posted for hearing the petitioner filed an application purporting to be under S. 48 of the Act read with or. 6, R. 17 and S. 151 of CPC (hereinafte
