Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chandrakala, contested the Gram Panchayat election for Ward No.6 of Degalmadi Gram Panchayat. On 30.12.2020, the Returning Officer (respondent No.3) counted the votes and found that both the appellant and respondent No.5 (Eramma) had secured 349 votes each. The Returning Officer then exercised his power under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993, and declared respondent No.5 as the returned candidate by drawing lots. The appellant submitted representations dated 30.12.2020 and 05.01.2021 to the Deputy Commissioner and Returning Officer, alleging irregularities in the counting and lot-drawing process. When no action was taken, she filed a writ petition (W.P.No.200061/2021) before the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to consider her representations. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 26.07.2021, holding that the appellant had an alternative remedy by way of an election petition. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this intra-court writ appeal. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order, noting that the Returning Officer had acted within his powers under Rule 73 and that disputed questions of fact regarding the election process cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The court emphasized that the proper remedy is to file an election petition under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted liberty to pursue an election petition if she so desired.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Tie-breaker - Rule 73 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 - Returning Officer's Power - When two candidates secure equal number of votes, the Returning Officer is empowered to determine the result by drawing lots. The appellant challenged the declaration of respondent No.5 as the returned candidate after a tie. The court held that the Returning Officer acted within his powers under Rule 73 and the appellant's remedy lies in an election petition, not a writ petition. (Paras 2-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the conduct of election, including the drawing of lots, cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The proper remedy is to file an election petition under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. (Paras 4-5) C) Election Law - Representation - Mandamus - The appellant sought a writ of mandamus to consider her representations alleging irregularities in the election process. The court held that such representations cannot be entertained after the declaration of result, as the election process is complete and the remedy lies elsewhere. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Returning Officer's decision to draw lots under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993, when two candidates secured equal votes, is valid and whether the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge. The court held that the Returning Officer acted within his powers under Rule 73 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993, and that disputed questions of fact regarding the election process cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The appellant was granted liberty to file an election petition if she so desired.
Law Points
- Election law
- Tie-breaker
- Rule 73
- Drawing of lots
- Returning Officer's discretion
- Writ of mandamus
- Alternative remedy
- Election petition
