Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 47736
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.5503 OF 2022 (LB - ELE)
BETWEEN:
MR. B. R. NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT BENAKANAGUNDI,
KALLUR, KALLUR POST, KADABA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
&PETITIONER
(BY SRI.AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MR.NANJAPPA,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIYA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT BENAKANAGUNDI,
KALLUR POST, KADABA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 3 572 219.
2.
THE TAHSILDAR,
GUBBI TALUK,
AT TALUK OFFICE,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216.
3.
RETURNING OFFICER,
SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O NOT KNOWN,
AGED 46 YEARS,
R/AT CDPO OFFICE,
GUBBI TALUK,TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216.
4.
ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR,
2
GUBBI TALUK,
GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216.
5.
MR. CHITRA SOMESHEKAR,
W/O SOMESHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT VINOBHA ROAD,
KALLUR, KALLUR POST,
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 219.
6.
MRS. JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O JAORAIYA K. K.,
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/AT KHDC COLONY,
KALLUR, KALLUR POST,
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 219.
7.
MRS. NANDINI K P.,
W/O BHUVANESH,
AGED 31 YEARS,
R/AT SRI RADHAMUNI SWAMI
DEVASTANA TEMPLE ROAD KALLUR,
KALLUR, KALLUR POST,
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 219.
8.
MRS. LAKSHMAMMA T B.,
W/O MANJUNATH,
AGED 29 YEARS,
R/AT A K COLONY, KALLUR, KALLUR POST,
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 219.
9.
MRS. LAKSHMI K N.,
W/O GURUMURTHY,
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/AT VINOBA ROAD,
KALLUR, KALLUR ROAD,
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 219.
10. MRS. SANNAMA,
3
W/O NANJUNDAIYA,
AGED 29 YEARS,
R/AT A.K.COLONY,
KALLUR, KALLUR POST,
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 3 572 219.
11. MRS. SUMITRA K M.,
W/O SHIVAIYA,
AGED 29 YEARS,
R/AT A K COLONY,
KALLUR, KALLUR POST,
KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT 3 572 219.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 09.12.2021 ON IA NO.3 IN ELECTION PETITION
NO.03/2021 ANNEXURE - A FILED BY THE R1 UNDER ORDER XI
RULE 14 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GUBBI
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Petitioner, a Returned Candidate of Kalluru Grama
Panchayath is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for
assailing the order dated 09.12.2021 made by the learned
Sr. Civil Judge, Gubbi, in first respondent9s E.P.No.3/2021
4
whereby respondents 2 to 4 are directed to produce the
ballet papers, voters list & other documents concerning the
subject election that was held on 07.12.2020.
2.
Learned AGA on request having accepted notice
for the official respondents opposes the writ petition
vehemently contending that, the arguable infirmity in the
impugned order relates to procedure i.e., summoning of the
documents in the course of trial of an election dispute and
that, it has not caused cognizable prejudice to the
petitioner. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the writ
petition.
3.
Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned AGA and having perused the
petition papers, this Court broadly being in agreement with
the submission of learned AGA, declines to grant indulgence
in the matter. Ordinarily, orders of the kind for production
of election related documents can be made after the
accomplishment of evidence, is true. Such a view is
forthcoming from the decision of a Coordinate Bench in
5
W.P.No.11278/2018 (LB-RES) between K N BYREGOWDA
v. N HARISH, disposed off on 06.06.2018. However, the
same is not a Thumb Rule to be followed invariably. No law
or ruling is cited to the contra view.
4.
The arguable infirmities in the impugned orders
per se are not sufficient to invoke a limited supervisory
jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227.
Petitioner has to show sufficient prejudice occasioned by a
wrong order and only then he gets a right to challenge it.
This view draws support from SADHANA LODH v.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., (2003) 3 SCC 524.
Despite
vehement
arguments,
no
such
prejudice
is
demonstrated.
5.
The above apart, impugned order is a product of
exercise of discretion vested in the Court below which has
assigned some reason in support of its view. That cannot
be deeply examined by this Court. It is a matter of
procedure since it pertains to the domain of evidence.
Infraction of procedure per se is not actionable, as rightly
submitted by the learned AGA.
6
In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid
of merits, is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is, costs
having been made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS
