Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Ravikumar H.P., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking to quash an order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the Returning Officer (Respondent No.5) accepting the nomination of Respondent No.8, A.B. Prem Kumar, for the election to the Sakleshpur Taluk Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC). The petitioner claimed to be an authorized representative of a society entitled to participate in the election. He contended that the nomination of Respondent No.8 was illegal under the Karnataka APMC Regulation and Development Rules, 1968. The respondents included the State of Karnataka, the Director of APMC, the Deputy Commissioner, the Returning Officer, the Sakleshpur Taluk APMC Co-operative Society, the APMC Committee, and the candidate whose nomination was challenged. The court examined the petitioner's locus standi. It observed that the petitioner was neither a candidate in the election nor a voter. The election was for the APMC, and the petitioner's claim of being an authorized representative did not confer upon him the right to challenge the nomination of another candidate. The court held that the petitioner lacked the necessary standing to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The court did not delve into the merits of the nomination challenge.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Locus Standi - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, claiming to be an authorized representative of a society, challenged the acceptance of nomination of a candidate in APMC elections. The court held that the petitioner, not being a candidate or voter in the election, has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who is not a candidate or voter in the election, has locus standi to challenge the acceptance of nomination of respondent No.8 in the APMC election.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of locus standi.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
- Election dispute
- Nomination validity
- Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Rules
- 1968
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (02) 35
Writ Petition No.846/2017 (APMC)
Sri Varun J. Patil (for petitioner), Sri Y.D. Harsha (AGA for R1, R2, R4, R5), Sri T. Mohandas Rao (for R8)
The State of Karnataka, Department of APMC; The State of Karnataka, Department of Co-Operation; The Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee; The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District; The Returning Officer, Agricultural Produce Marketing Samiti, Sakleshpur; Sakleshpur Taluk Agricultural Produce Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd.; Sakleshpur Taluk Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee; A.B. Prem Kumar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the acceptance of nomination of a candidate in APMC election.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 30.12.2016 accepting nomination of respondent No.8 and stay of election.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the nomination of respondent No.8 was illegal under the Karnataka APMC Regulation and Development Rules, 1968.
Issues
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the acceptance of nomination of respondent No.8 in the APMC election.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he is an authorized representative to participate in the election and that the nomination of respondent No.8 is illegal.
Respondents argued that the petitioner is not a candidate or voter and thus lacks locus standi.
Ratio Decidendi
A person who is not a candidate or voter in an election has no locus standi to challenge the acceptance of nomination of another candidate under writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner herein is claiming himself to be an authorized representative to participate in the election to be held for Sakaleshpur APMC.
The petitioner is not a candidate in the election nor is he a voter in the election. Therefore, he has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.846/2017 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on an unspecified date, challenging the order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the Returning Officer accepting the nomination of respondent No.8. The petition came up for further arguments on 22.02.2018 and was dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Rules, 1968:
