IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. VEERAPPA, J.
Pushpa B. R. W/O Sanjeevamurthy B S and Ors - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka Department of Urban Development and Ors - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.35510-35513 of 2018 (LB-RES)
Decided on : 21-08-2018
1. This is a classic case of fraud, greed and misuse of judicial process by filing frivolous writ petitions by the petitioners seeking for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to include their names in the voters list pertaining to ward No.21 of Chalakere Town and permit them to vote, contest and participate in the elections that is scheduled to be held on 01.09.2018 to the respondent No.6/Chalakere City Municipal Council.
I. FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are all residents of No.342, Shivanagar, Chalakere, Chitradurga District. The first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the son and daughter of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Petitioners were earlier residents of Nagaramgere village, Chalakere Taluk. Now they have shifted their residence to Chalakere Town. The copies of the voters’ identity card when the petitioners were residing at Nagaramgere are produced as per Annexures-A, A1, A2 and A3. After the petitioners shifted to Chalakere, they have been staying in Chalakere. The copy of the rent agreement dated 01.08.2017 and continuation of rent agreement dated 18.06.2018 are produced as per Annexures-B and B1. The petitioners also obtained residential/domicile certificates as per Annexures-C, C1, C2 and C3. Thereafter, petitioners shifted to the present address and they were issued with voters’ identity cards issued by the Election Commission of India as per Annexures- D, D1, D2 and D3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the their names have been included in the voters’ list and their names have been reflected in the website and copies of the same are produced as per Annexures-E, E1, E2 and E3. The first respondent has issued calendar of events for the elections to the respondent No.6/CMC on 02.08.2018, as per Annexure F. As per the calendar of events, the last date for filing of nomination is fixed as 17.08.2018 and the date of election is fixed as 01.09.2018. The area in which the petitioners are residing falls under ward No.21. The said ward is reserved for General Women category. The petitioner No.1 is also an aspirant to contest the election.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that when the petitioners obtained entire copy of the voters’ list of ward No.21, they were surprised to see that their names had not been included in the voters’ list. The copy of the voters’ list in part Nos.28 and 29 is produced as per Annexures-H and H1. It is contended by the petitioners that their names are deliberately not included in the official voters’ list for political reasons. The petitioner No.1 has a bright chance of winning the election. Therefore, some of the political leaders did not wanted the petitioner No.1 to contest the elections. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for.
II. THE PROCEEDINGS OF THIS COURT:
4. When the matter came up for admission on 14.08.2018, this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, directed the learned Government Advocate to get instructions from the concerned authority as to why the names of the petitioners are not included in the voters’ list of ward No.21. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 16.08.2018. On that day, Smt.Prathima Honnapur, learned Addl. Government Advocate produced the original records and pointed out that Annexure-B1 produced by the petitioners is a nonjudicial e-stamp paper issued on 18.06.2018 at 3.25 pm on which the continuation of lease agreement is executed between the second petitioner and the owner of the land bearing khatha No.2608/2469/5911/19 measuring 19 x 12 mtrs with a vacant building measuring 1662 sq.ft. The learned Government Advocate also produced the records of Annexure-B and submitted that the year of issue is 2018 and it is tampered as 2017. Therefore, this Court recorded a finding that, if the very stamp paper is purchased on 18.06.2018, it is not forthcoming as to how the lease agreement can be exec
Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2013)2 SCC 398
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114
Amar Singh v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69
State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam (1980) 3 SCC 141
Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & v. Munshi
A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam
Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma
Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India (2011) 6 SCC 145
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.