This application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the CPC’] is by the respondent in an election petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 [for short, the Act].

2. The petitioner, who claims to have made an attempt to file nomination papers for seeking election to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly from the K.R. Puram constituency and whose nomination papers did not even elicit any response from the returning officer, even as to accept the same forget about scrutiny and opining on the quality an fate of the nomination, has presented the election petition invoking grounds 100(1)(c) of the Act, seeking for the following relief:

a) Pleased to declare the election to K.R. Puram Assembly Constituency as null and void and order fresh elections in the interest of justice and equity, as the petitioner is entitled for relief under Section 100 (1) (c) Representation of People Act 1951, since rejection of petitioner’s nomination paper at the threshold by the 4th respondent is illegal and improper.

b) Pleased to direct the Respondent’s No.1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against Respondent No.4 as per provisions of Representation of People Act 1951, so that it serves as a deterrent and discourage such officer’s from violating the statutory law and helps in upholding the constitutional right’s of the Citizens in general and petitioner in particular.

c) Pleased to issue any other suitable order and direction this Honourable Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.

3. To the petition, the Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commissioners and election commission of India, the chief electoral officer, State of Karnataka, the district electoral officer, Bangalore urban district and the returning officer, K.R. Puram assembly constituency have been arrayed as respondents 1 to 4 respectively, whereas the returned candidate figured as fifth respondent to the election petition.

4. In the meanwhile, the registry having raised certain objections, particularly as to the tenability of the petitioner having impleaded certain statutory functionaries like respondents 1 to 4 as respondents and on this aspect this court permitted the petitioner to delete these respondents from the array of respondents, as per order dated 31-7-2008 and it was thereafter, notices had been issued to the respondents on the election petition.

5. After issue of notice to the respondents, while the service on the fifth respondent-returned candidate, a sitting member of assembly, with some efforts on the part of the petitioner and also through the normal process through court, having failed and being served through paper publication, taken out in the Prajavani Kannada daily dated 31-12-2008, the respondent (by then the sole respondent) has caused appearance through counsel Sri. C. Shashikantha.

6. Respondent filed his objections/written statement to the election petition before the registry as on 7-3-2009. There being some delay in filing the written statement, an application for condoning the delay and this court ultimately on examining those application and after hearing the Counsel appearing for the respondent and the petitioner, allowed the application in terms of the order dated 24-3-2009, as the petitioner was inclined to accept the condition of imposition of cost on the fifth respondent.

7. Thereafter, the filed an application in Misc Civil No.6931 of 2009 under Section 151 CPC read with Section 87 of the Act seeking for permission to file rejoinder to the written statement filed by the fifth respondent. This application was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to file rejoinder as the order dated 22-4-2009 and the matter was directed to be listed for framing of issues with liberty to the parties to file draft issues.

8. At this stage, the election petitioner had come up with another application in Misc Civil No.1027