Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a Gram Panchayat election held pursuant to a notification published on 23.07.2020. The petitioner contested and was declared elected as a member. Respondent No.1 filed Election Petition No.11/2021 before the Senior Civil Judge, Shahapur, challenging the petitioner's election. The election petition sought a declaration that the petitioner's election be set aside and that respondent No.1 be declared the elected candidate. By order dated 31.10.2022, the Senior Civil Judge allowed the election petition, setting aside the petitioner's election. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the said order. The petitioner contended that the election petition suffered from non-joinder of all contesting candidates as required under Section 15(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, rendering it not maintainable. It was further argued that the mere suppression of certain properties in the declaration did not amount to a corrupt practice. The petitioner relied on decisions of the Delhi High Court, the Bombay High Court, and this Court to support these contentions. The writ petition was heard and reserved for orders on 05.06.2023, and the order was pronounced on 26.07.2023. The text of the judgment is incomplete, and the court's analysis and final decision are not available in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petition was maintainable without impleading all contesting candidates as required under Section 15(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993; Whether the suppression of certain properties in the declaration filed by the elected candidate would constitute a corrupt practice warranting the setting aside of the election.
Law Points
- Non-joinder of contesting candidates as required under Section 15(2)(a) of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act
- 1993 renders election petition not maintainable
- Amendment cannot cure non-joinder after limitation
- Suppression of property not amounting to corrupt practice
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (07) 104
WRIT PETITION NO. 203232 OF 2022 (LB-ELE)
V.K. Nayak (for petitioner), Shravan Kumar Math (for Respondent No.1), Maya T.R. (HCGP for Respondents 2-4)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Election petition challenging Gram Panchayat election; writ petition against order allowing election petition.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (elected candidate) sought quashing of the judgment in Election Petition No.11/2021 and restoration of her election.
Filing Reason
The election tribunal set aside the petitioner's election on grounds of suppression of property details; the petitioner contended the decision was erroneous for non-joinder of necessary parties and absence of corrupt practice.
Previous Decisions
Election Petition No.11/2021 was allowed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shahapur, on 31.10.2022, setting aside the petitioner's election.
Issues
Whether the election petition is maintainable without impleading all contesting candidates as required under Section 15(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993?
Whether the alleged suppression of certain properties in the declaration would constitute a corrupt practice warranting setting aside of the election?
Whether the trial court erred in setting aside the election on the grounds raised?
Submissions/Arguments
The election petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of all contesting candidates as required under Section 15(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993; amendment after limitation cannot cure the defect.
The decisions in Surinder Kumar vs. Ranjit Singh, Khadarsab vs. Munsab, and other cited cases establish that an election petition must be dismissed if necessary parties are not joined within the limitation period.
The mere suppression of certain properties owned by the petitioner and her husband in the declaration does not amount to a corrupt practice, and the finding to the contrary is erroneous.
Reliance was placed on Narayan vs. Deepak (Bombay High Court) to argue that non-disclosure of certain details in an affidavit does not necessarily constitute a corrupt practice.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief: To set aside the judgment in Election Petition No.11/2021 passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shahapur, dated 31.10.2022 as per Annexure-D in the interest of justice and equity.
A notification was published by the respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner for election to the Gram Panchayath on 23.07.2020. The petitioner having contested was declared as elected candidate.
Apart from questioning the election of the petitioner – respondent No.1, a declaration was sought for to declare respondent No.1 as a returned candidate without making all the contestants as a party and as such, the same is violative of Section 15(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
Procedural History
Gram Panchayat election notification published on 23.07.2020; petitioner contested and declared elected; Respondent No.1 filed Election Petition No.11/2021 before Senior Civil Judge, Shahapur; the election petition was allowed by order dated 31.10.2022, setting aside petitioner's election; petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 203232/2022 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench; the writ petition was reserved for orders on 05.06.2023 and order pronounced on 26.07.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993: 15(2)(a)
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: 82, 86, 81, 87, 116A, 117
