Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 31
High Court of Karnataka
ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI, J.
Prasanna Kumar & Another
Versus
G.M. Siddeshwar & Others
Election Petition No. 2 of 2009 C/W Election Petition No. 3 of 2009
Decided on: 16-01-2014
For the Petitioners:Ko. Chnnabasappa, B.M. Halaswamy, Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Advocates.
For the Common Respondents:M.B. Nargund, C.S. Shashikanth, P.S. Manjunath, T.P. Vivekananda, Advocates.
Headnote:INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - Statutory provision: [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Courts should not strain the language of a statute in order to cover cases which are plainly excluded from the natural meaning of the words. The Courts have to pay attention to the language of the statute with a rational regard to the aim and object of the legislature as manifested in the language of the Section. The Courts cannot unduly enlarge the scope of a statutory provision, especially when it has the effect of curtailing the right or the freedom of a person to stand for election. Election Petitions are dismissed.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - Sections 7(d) & 9A: [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Relative scope - Both the Section 7(d) and Section 9A contain the disabling provisions, but the difference between the two Sections is that the disabling provision in Section 7(d) is of absolute nature. On the other hand, the disabling provision in Section 9A is of conditional nature.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - Section 81: [Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J] Election Petition challenging the Election of first Respondent (Returned Candidate) - Contention that acceptance of the nomination paper of the returned candidate is in violation of Section 9-A of the R.P. Act, as the provisions contained in Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the R.P. Act are attracted to the respondent - Held, a candidate holding a subsisting contract with the Government is disqualified for being chosen as a MP under Section 9A of the R.P. Act, because he is in a position after successful election to get the concession for himself in the performance of his contract. In the instant case, the question of extracting any concession by the implementing agency would not arise at all. The question of disqualification arising from contract with Government has to be decided on the basis of substance and not mere form. The implementing agency cannot be brought within the mischief of Section 9A of the R.P. Act. Considering all these aspects of the matter, it is difficult to accept the allegation of the petitioners that the order is not prepared by the Returning Officer or that it was prepared beforehand, that is even before he conclusion of the arguments on the objections to the respondent’s nomination paper. As the petitioners have not produced any clinching evidence to show that the respondent or his agents have committed any corrupt practices or exerted undue influence on the voters, the contention that the respondent’s nomination paper is improperly accepted and/or that there is any infraction of law materially affecting the outcome of the election in question cannot be accepted.
1. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the election of the respondent to the 15th Lok Sabha from 13 Davanagere Lok Sabha Constituency at the election held on 30.4.2009 and the result of the election declared on 16.5.2009.
2. The respondent had filed Misc.Cvl.386/2010 in E.P.No.2/2009 invoking Section 81(3), 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called ‘the R.P. Act’ for short) read with Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for the dismissal/rejection of the election petition and Misc.Cvl.No.1431/2010 invoking Order VI Rule 16 of CPC for striking out paragraph Nos.1(III) (i) to (iv), II(2) to (17). By a common order, dated 24.2.2010 both the applications were disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to attest each copy of the election petition and its annexures as the true copy. The respondent Nos.2 to 28 were ordered to be deleted from these proceedings. Paragraph Nos.III(iv) and II(15) of the election petition were ordered to be struck out.
3. The respondent filed Misc.Cvl.No.3269/2010 in E.P.No.3/2009 invoking Section 86, 87 and 100(1)(a)(d)(i)(iv) of the R.P. Act read with Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for the rejection of the election petition and Misc.Cvl.3270/2010 invoking Sections 86, 87 and 100(1)(a)(d)(i)(iv) of the R.P. Act read with Order VI Rule 16 of CPC for striking out paragraph Nos.3 to 11. The said applications were dismissed by a common order, dated 22.6.2010.
4. The order, dated 24.2.2010 in E.P.No.2/2009 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP(C)Nos.14172-14173/2010 – Civil Appeal Nos.2250-2251/2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the interim order on 13.5.2010 as follows: “Trial shall go on, but no final order be in the meantime”. Similarly, the order, dated 22.6.2010 in E.P.No.3/2009 was challenged by filing SLP(C) Nos.24886-24889/2010 – Civil Appeal Nos.2252-2255/2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by its interim order, dated 1.9.2010 directed that the judgment in E.P.No.3/2009 shall not be announced till further orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said appeals on 8.3.2013.
5. The case of the petitioner in E.P.No.2/2009 is that the acceptance of the nomination paper of the returned candidate (the respondent herein) is in violation of Section 9A of the R.P. Act, as the provisions contained in Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the R.P. Act are attracted to the respondent. The respondent was a Member of Parliament between 2004-2009. As the Member of Parliament, he recommended the construction of a large number of bus-shelters under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). He recommended that the Principal, GMIT be the implementing authority for the construction work of these bus-shelters. The Principal, GMIT is only an employee of the respondent. The GMIT is being run by Srishyla Educational Trust of which the respondent is the Chairman. The Principal is thus an employee of the respondent. The Principal is an agent and benamidhar of the respondent. Violating the guidelines of MPLADS, the respondent has chosen the implementing authority only to reap the benefits from the contract. The entrustment of the work to the Principal, GMIT is without calling for the tenders and is therefore in contravention of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. The respondent also got the cost of the construction of the bus-shelters revised upward with a view to benefit himself. The Deputy Commissioner was acting blindly and at the behest of the respondent. The cost of the works executed amounting to Rs.77.50 lakhs have been siphoned off into the funds of the said Trust.
6. The further pleadings in the petition are that even when the respondent was disqualified to contest the election, his nomination paper was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. The objections to the nomination paper of the respondent were not duly considered by the Returning Officer. It was humanly not possible for
