Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sharanappa S/o Lachamappa, was elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat of Ullesugur, Wadagera Taluk, Yadagiri District. The election was challenged by respondents 9 and 10, Suguresh S/o Sharanappa Padashsetty and Sharanappa S/o Shivalingappa, through a writ petition (W.P. No.202196/2023) before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. The Single Judge set aside the election on 06-10-2023 on the ground that the Prescribed Officer had not published the list of contesting candidates as required under Rule 4(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1996. The appellant filed a writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the Single Judge's order. The Division Bench, comprising Justice R. Devdas and Justice C.M. Joshi, heard the appeal. The appellant argued that the requirement under Rule 4(2) was directory and not mandatory, and that the election should not be set aside for a procedural irregularity. The respondents, represented by the State and other parties, supported the Single Judge's order. The court examined the language of Rule 4(2) and held that the word 'shall' indicates a mandatory requirement. The court noted that the publication of the list of contesting candidates is essential for transparency and fairness in the election process. Non-compliance vitiates the election. The court also held that a writ petition is maintainable to challenge an election on the ground of violation of statutory rules, as the defect goes to the root of the election process. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order setting aside the appellant's election. The court directed that fresh elections be conducted in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Gram Panchayat Election - Non-compliance with Rule 4(2) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1996 - The appellant's election was set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Prescribed Officer failed to publish the list of contesting candidates as required under Rule 4(2). The Division Bench upheld the order, holding that the requirement is mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the election. (Paras 1-10) B) Election Law - Writ Petition - Maintainability - The court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to challenge an election on the ground of violation of statutory rules, even if an election petition is available, when the defect goes to the root of the election process. (Paras 5-8) C) Election Law - Mandatory vs Directory - Rule 4(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1996 - The court held that the requirement to publish the list of contesting candidates is mandatory, and failure to do so renders the election void. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election of the appellant as a member of Gram Panchayat was vitiated due to non-compliance with Rule 4(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1996, which requires the Prescribed Officer to publish the list of contesting candidates in the prescribed manner.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06-10-2023 setting aside the appellant's election. The court directed that fresh elections be conducted in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Election law
- Gram Panchayat
- Non-compliance with mandatory rule
- Rule 4(2) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules
- 1996
- Section 42 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act
- 1993
- Writ appeal
- Interference with election process
