Disqualification under Section 12(h) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act applies only to subsisting contracts, necessitating purposive interpretation to avoid absurd outcomes.

ORDER :

S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner in the Election Petition aggrieved by the order passed in E.P.No.2/2021 dated 06.08.2022, whereby the Election Petition has been rejected.

2. The parties are referred to by their ranks before the Election Tribunal.

3. Apart from other grounds urged, the primary ground that was urged in the Election Petition was that the respondent No.1 was not qualified to be chosen as a member in terms of Section 12(h) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, (for brevity 'the Act') which provides for disqualification in the event the member has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any work done by the Gram Panchayat.

4. The brief facts made out was that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 had contested for the post of member of Beeruhalli Gram Panchayat and in such election, the respondent No.1 was declared elected. The Election Petition under Section 15 read with Sections 19 and 20 of the Act came to be filed seeking a declaration that the election of respondent No.1 to be declared as null and void. Consequential prayer was sought to declare the petitioner as the successful candidate as regards the Second Block, Beeruhalli Constituency of Beeruhalli Gram Panchayat.

5. The petitioner had let in evidence and marked documents as Exhibits P1 to P12, while the respondent No.1 had also adduced evidence and got marked documents as Exhibits R1 to R4.

6. The Tribunal after a detailed analysis had framed the following points for consideration:-

"i. Does the petitioner proves (sic) that the respondent No.1 was disqualified for being chosen and for being a Member of Gram Panchayat as he had directly or indirectly any share or interest in any work done by order of the Gram Panchayat? ii.

ii. Does the petitioner proves (sic) that the process of counting of ballot papers of the General Category was improper? iii.

iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?"

7. The findings on all the points for consideration were in the negative.

8. Insofar as point for consideration No.(i) as regards disqualification under Section 12(h) of the Act, the Tribunal has held as follows:-

(i) In terms of the clarification issued by the Karnataka State Election Commission on 10th December 2020, it was held that as long as there was no existing contract between the contestant and the Gram Panchayat, the disqualification would not be attracted.

(ii) It was held that the contract works undertaken by respondent No.1 was completed as on 11.12.2019, 17.12.2018 and 03.06.2020, while the last payment received by the respondent was on 03.07.2020 (Exhibit-P9), however, election itself came to be notified on 07.07.2020 and as on such date, the respondent No.1 had no interest in any work done by the Gram Panchayat nor had any subsisting contract with the Gram Panchayat and accordingly, it was held that no disqualification was attracted.

9. As regards point for consideration (ii), relating to the process of counting of ballot papers, it was held that no sufficient evidence was led by the petitioner and further, no objections having been raised at the relevant point of time before the Returning Officer, such contention could not be raised at a belated stage. Accordingly, the Election Petition came to be rejected.

10. The present petition has been filed calling in question the correctness of said order.

11. The only ground raised in the present writ petition is as regards the finding on point for consideration (i), i.e. relating to the disqualification under Section 12(h) of the Act.

12. Sri R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the disqualification in terms of Section 12(h) would kick in where the member has done any work for the Gram Panchayat. It is contended that plain language under Section 12(h) ought to be given effect to in the absence of any ambiguity and there is nothing in the language that limits