1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

WRIT PETITION No.326/2021 (LB-ELE)

BETWEEN:

SRI G H NINGEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

S/O HUILEGOWDA

R/AT GAGENAHALLI VILLAGE

KASBA HOBLI

HUNSUR TALUK

MYSORE DISTRICT – 571105. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

REPD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

NO.8, 1^ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING

ANNEXE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD

BENGALURU – 560052.

2. THE RETURNING/ELECTION OFFICER

GAGENAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH

HUNSUR TALUK

MYSORE DISTRICT – 571105.

3. SRI RAJESH

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

S/O SHEKAREGOWDA

R/AT GAGENAHALLI VILLAGE

KASABA HOBLI

HUNSUR TALUK

MYSORE DISTRICT – 571105.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP)

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ORDER (ENDORSEMENT) DATED 30.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE

R2

RETURNING

OFFICER,

WHEREIN

REJECTED

THE

APPLICATION

MADE

BY

THE

PETITIONER

SEEKING

RECOUNTING OF VOTERS IN SO FAR AS BOTH NO.66 WITH

RESPECT TO VILLAGE PANCHAYATH ELECTIONS HELD FOR

GAGENAHALLI

VILLAGE

CONSTITUENCY

NO.2,

OF

GAGENAHALLI

VILLAGE

PANCHAYATH.

THE

SAID

ENDORSEMENT IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A

AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R2 RETURNING OFFICER TO

CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 30.12.2020 MADE FOR

RE-COUNTING COPY AT ANNEXURE-C.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

The petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in the

Panchayath Election is before this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the

endorsement dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure-C) by which

respondent No.2–the Returning Officer rejected the

application of the petitioner for recounting of votes

insofar

as

booth

No.66

of

Gagenahalli

Village

Panchayath and for a mandamus directing respondent

No.2–the Returning Officer to consider the application

dated 30.12.2020 for recounting of votes.

3

2.

Heard Sri B.S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the

petitioner. Sri Nithyananda K.R., learned HCGP

assisted the Court.

3.

Sri B.S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that the petitioner contested the election

held on 22.12.2020 to Gagenahalli Village Constituency

No.2 of Gagenahalli Village Panchayath. The counting of

votes was held on 30.12.2020. Petitioner is concerned

with Booth No.66 of Gagenahalli Village Panchayath, for

which counting started at 12.00 Noon on 30.12.2020.

One Sri Chandregowda, Agent of the petitioner was

present during the counting. The Returning Officer

announced the votes secured by respondent No.3 and

the petitioner as 430 and 424 respectively. Petitioner’s

agent Sri Chandregowda raised objection stating that

there is wrong counting and immediately requested the

Returning Officer for recounting. The application signed

by the petitioner was also made immediately as per

Annexure-C for recounting of votes. The said request of

4

the

petitioner

was

rejected

as

per

Annexure-A

endorsement stating that the petitioner’s application for

recounting was not made within 10 minutes of

completion of counting. Learned counsel for the

petitioner would contend that no such time limit is

prescribed under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and

Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) nor the

Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules,

1993 (for short ‘the Rules). Learned counsel would

invite attention of this Court to Rule 71 of the Rules to

submit that the 2^nd respondent–the Returning Officer

failed to follow the procedure contemplated therein.

Further learned counsel would submit that the

petitioner is not questioning the election, but is

questioning only reje