Back
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
M.F.A.NO.6126 OF 2022 (MPA)
C/W
M.F.A.NO.6685 OF 2022 (MPA)
IN M.F.A.NO.6126/2022:
BETWEEN:
K. RAVISHANKAR,
S/O KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/OF SAPTAGIRI BADAVANE,
WARD NO.31, SIRA TOWN,
SIRA - 572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
[BY SRI. D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
Ms. SRUTI C. CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1 .
M. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O MUDLAGIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.404, BHOVI COLONY,
RANGANATHANAGAR,
BEHIND DURGA ITI COLLEGE,
SIRA TOWN, SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2.
H. MARUTHEESH,
S/O HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
2
R/OF WARD NO.9
SOPPINAHATTI SIRA TOWN
SIRA-572137
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3 .
ADIL PASHA,
S/O ABDUL JABEEL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT LADPUR, SIRA TOWN,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
4 .
S PRAVEENKUMAR,
S/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/OF JYOTHI NAGAR,
SIRA TOWN, SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5 .
GEETHA M
W/O RAMESH B.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/OF LADPUR,
SIRA TOWN,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
6 .
K BABU,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/OF LADPUR,
SIRA TOWN,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
7 .
MOHAMMAD HANIF,
S/O MOHAMMAD,
WAJID SAB,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/OF WARD NO.9,
SPOOINAHATTI SIRA TOWN,
3
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
8 .
S R LAKSHMINARAYAN, RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 8 ARE
S/O N RAMARAJU, DELETED V/O DT. 05.09.2022
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/OF JYOTHI NAGAR SIRA TOWN,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
9 .
THE GOVERNMENT KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
10 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR-572 101,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
11 . THE TAHSILDAR,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
SIRA TALUK OFFICE,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
12 . CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SIRA,
SIRA TOWN MAIN ROAD,
SIRA-572 137,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
13 . THE KARNATAKA STATE,
ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 052,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
14 . THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER,
RETURNING OFFICER, SIRA,
SIRA-572 137,
4
TUMKURU DISTRICT,
REP. BY TAHSILDAR, SIRA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH);
SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH);
SRI. RAMESH GOWDA A., AGA FOR R9 TO R11 (PH);
SRI. S. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R12 (PH);
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R13 & R14 (PH);
R3 TO R8 ARE DELETED V/O DATED 05.09.2022]
IN M.F.A.NO.6685/2022:
BETWEEN:
H.MARUTHEESH,
S/O HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O WARD NO.9,
SOPPUNAHATTI,
SIRA TOWN, SIRA-572 137,
TUMKURU DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
[BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1 .
M. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O MUDLAGIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.404, BHOVI COLONY,
RANGANATHANAGAR,
BEHIND DURGA ITI COLLEGE,
SIRA TOWN, SIRA-572137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5
2 .
K RAVISHANKAR,
S/O KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O SAPTAGIRI BADAVANE,
WARD NO.31,
SIRA TOWN,
SIRA-572137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3 .
ADIL PASHA,
S/O ABDUL JABEEL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT LADPUR,
SIRA TOWN,
SIRA-572137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
4 .
S. PRAVEENKUMAR,
S/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/OF JYOTHI NAGAR,
SIRA TOWN,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5 .
GEETHA M.,
W/O RAMESH B.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
6 .
K BABU,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6 ARE
R/A LADPUR, SIRA TOWN,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
6
7 .
MOHAMMAD HANIF,
S/O MOHAMMAD, WAJID SAB,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/OF WARD NO.9,
SOPPINAHATTI SIRA TOWN,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
8 .
S R LAKSHMINARAYAN,
S/O N RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/OF JYOTHI NAGAR,
SIRA TOWN,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
9 .
THE GOVERNMENT KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
10 .
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR-572 101,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
11 .
THE TAHSILDAR,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
SIRA TALUK OFFICE,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
12 .
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
SIRA, SIRA TOWN MAIN ROAD,
SIRA-572 137,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
13 .
THE KARNATAKA STATE
ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
7
BANGALORE-560 052,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
14 .
THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER,
RETURNING OFFICER, SIRA,
SIRA-572 137,
TUMKURU DISTRICT,
REP. BY TAHSILDAR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (PH);
SRI. D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
Ms. SRUTI C. CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH);
SRI. RAMESH GOWDA A., AGA FOR R9 TO R11 & R14 (PH);
SRI. S. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R12 (PH);
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R13 (PH)]
THIS M.F.A No.6126/2022 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE
KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DATED 26.08.2022 PASSED IN E.P.NO.1/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC., SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED U/S 21 AND 23 OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 R/W
RULE 69 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1977.
THIS M.F.A No.6685/2022 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE
KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DATED 26.08.2022 PASSED IN E.P.NO.1/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC., SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION
FILED U/S 21 AND 23 OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 R/W
RULE 69 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1977.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 16.11.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
8
Challenging impugned order dated 26.08.2022 passed by
Senior Civil Judge, JMFC., Sira, in E.P.no.1/2022, these appeals are
filed.
2.
Appellant in MFA no.6126/2022 was respondent no.1,
while appellant in MFA no.6685/2022 was respondent no.2 in
E.P.no.1/2022. Respondent no.1 in both appeals herein was
petitioner and respondents no.2 to 14 herein were respondents
no.2 to 14 in E.P.no.1/2022 respectively. For sake of convenience,
they will hereinafter be referred to as per their ranks in election
petition.
3.
E.P.no.1/2022 was filed by Sri M. Krishnappa (Petitioner)
under Sections 21 and 23 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as ‘KM Act’), read with Rule 69 of
Karnataka Municipalities Rules, 1977 (for short 'KM Rules'), for
following reliefs:
a)
declare
candidature
of
respondent
no.1
(Sri K. Ravishankar) in respect of ward no.9 of
City Municipal Council, Sira, as null and void
and not in accordance with KM Act and Rules;
and
9
b)
direct respondent authorities to hold election
to ward no.9 of City Muncipal Council afresh
etc.
4.
In petition, it was stated that as per directions of
respondent no.9 – Government of Karnataka, respondent no.13 -
Karnataka State Election Commission ('State E.C.' for short) issued
calendar of events dated 29.11.2021 for conduct of elections to
council of respondent no.12 - City Municipal Council ("CMC" for
short). And that ward no.9 was notified for contest from General
category candidates, on 27.12.2021. It was further stated that
being registered voter in CMC and eligible, filed nomination along
with declaration to contest election for post of Councilor from Ward
no.9. It was stated that respondents no.1 to 8 had also filed
nominations/declarations in respect of same ward.
5.
It was stated that as per circular issued by State E.C.,
every candidate was required to file declaration declaring his source
of income, criminal case history, assets and liabilities etc., upto
date at time of filing nomination, in compliance with Section 15 of
KM Act read with Rule 15 of KM Rules. It was stated that
respondent no.1 had suppressed true facts and filed false
10
declaration, knowingly concealing true facts. It was stated though
respondent no.1 was involved in many criminal cases and convicted
in few, was holding 500 kgs of gold disproportionate to his rental
income of only Rs.3,60,000/- and therefore false. It was stated that
authorities failed to verify correctness of information/declaration
and illegally accepted his nomination and permitted ineligible
candidate to contest election.
6.
Petitioner also alleged that respondent no.1 had used
undue influence in collusion with Block Level Officers and Returning
Officer, CMC and got deleted some voters in ward no.9 and got
inserted names of others, who were not in it without address proof
etc., which amounted to corrupt practice.
7.
It was stated that petitioner had secured 381 votes as
against 401 votes secured by respondent no.1 - candidate returned
as winner of election. Aggrieved thereby, election petition was filed.
8.
Upon service of notice, respondent no.1 filed objections
denying petition averments as false. Insofar as criminal cases, it
was stated that respondent no.1 was acquitted long back and due
to lack of information and memory, they were not stated in
11
declaration, but omission was bonafide. It was stated that he had
not declared holding 500 Kgs of gold, but value stated at
Rs.45,00,000/-
comprised
of
499.5
Kgs
of
silver
worth
Rs.37,46,250/- and 500 gms of gold worth Rs.7,53,750/-. It was
also stated that he was having other sources of income, such as
Rs.3,60,000/- as rent from house property standing in name of his
wife, which were included in declaration and denied concealment of
any material particular with malafide intention so as to attract
Section 21 and 23 of KM Act.
9.
Respondent no.11 - Tahsildar, respondent no.12 - CMC
filed separate, but formal objections.
10.
Based on pleadings, tribunal framed following
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
