The nomination for a specific category in an election precludes a candidate from seeking election from a different category, and adherence to specified constituencies and election rules is crucial.

CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein had filed the instant writ petition with main prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the publication of the list of successful candidates in the election held on 15-5-1999 in pursuance of the election notification issued by the respondent 2-returning officer, copy as at Annexure-D to writ petition and to declare that the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 15 were duly elected to the committee of management of the respondent 3-bank.

( 2 ) I feel it necessary to advert to the facts of the case in brief, they are as hereunder.

( 3 ) THAT the respondent 2 had held election to the committee of management of the respondent 3-bank on 15-5-1999 and as per the election notification dated 23-4-1999 issued by the respondent 2, copy at Annexure-A to writ petition, 11 directors from among the general members and one each from among the women and sc/st members, in all 13 directors had to be elected to the respondent 3-bank. That the petitioner herein had applied for a seat reserved for the sc/st category and he had secured 1,107 votes. The other 3 candidates who filed nomination papers for the said sc/st category were the respondent 4, who having secured the highest number of votes of. 1,434 declared elected, non-parties prakash s. m. who secured 293 votes and ravikumar s. m. who secured 347 votes.

( 4 ) THE complaint of the petitioner in filing the instant writ petition was that, since he had secured 1,107 votes, he had to be taken to and categorised in the general seats to be declared as elected as he had secured more number of votes than the respondents 14, 15 and 16 who secured 1,009, 998 and 963 votes respectively as the candidates contested from the general seats.

( 5 ) IT is the argument of Sri hanumanthaiah that, though his party had applied for and contested the seat reserved for sc/st category, since he had secured a total number of 1,107 votes vis-a-vis 1,009 votes secured by respondent 14, 998 votes secured by the respondent 15 and 963 votes by the respondent 16, the returning officer would have declared his party as a successful in the election. According to him, the returning officer would have declared his party as duly elected from among the general seat by strictly interpreting sub-rule (34) (ii) of rule 14 of the Co-Operative Societies Rules (as amended), wherein it is provided that the candidates who had secured the maximum number of votes shall be declared as elected. To substantiate his argument, sri hanumanthaiah had also relied upon rules 12 (4) and 68 (b) of Karnataka municipal corporations (elections) rules, 1979 and further rules 15, 24 (b) (2) and 74 (15) (b) of Karnataka grama panchayatraj (conduct of election) rules, 1993. He further relied upon sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the General Clauses Act. All that he did to interpret sub-rule (34) (ii) of Rule 14 of the Co-Operative Societies Rules in the matter of counting of votes and declaration of the result of the election.

( 6 ) THEREFORE, he submitted that the publication of the list of candidates successful in the election, copy of Annexure-D to writ petition be quashed and the petitioner herein be declared as duly elected as the 9th successful candidate from the general seat.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 11 to 14 Sri patil on the other side submitted that the instant writ petition had been filed on a total misconception. According to him, the constituencies were clearly earmarked not only in the bye-law, but also in the election notification, copy as at annexure, Rule 2 to the objection statement by him and that the petitioner having filed his nomination for the post earmarked for the sc/st category, it was not at all available for him to say that he be declared as one of the successful candidates in the general seats just because he had secured higher number of votes than the respondents 14 to 16. While adverting to sub-rule (34) (i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document