Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri T.J. Prasanna Kumar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by an endorsement dated 30.06.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Tarikere (Respondent No.1), informing him that his representation for recounting of votes in the election for Anuvanahalli Village Panchayat had already been considered by recounting the votes polled, and there was no provision for further recount. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.24656/2015, alleging that he was informed by the Election Officer that he secured 270 votes while his rival, Sri Palaksha (Respondent No.2), got 272 votes. Having lost by a narrow margin of two votes, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.06.2015 for recounting, but it was not considered. This Court, while disposing of the earlier writ petition on 17.06.2015, directed the Returning Officer to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to this direction, the Returning Officer conducted a recounting and issued the impugned endorsement stating that recounting had already been done and no further recount was permissible. The petitioner then filed the present petition challenging the endorsement. The High Court observed that the earlier direction had been complied with by the Returning Officer by recounting the votes. The Court held that once recounting has been done, there is no provision for further recount under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Recounting - Village Panchayat Election - Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - The petitioner sought recounting of votes after losing by a narrow margin. The Returning Officer had already conducted a recounting and informed the petitioner that no further recount was permissible. The High Court held that once recounting has been done, there is no provision for further recount under the Act. The petition was dismissed as the earlier direction for consideration had been complied with. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a further recount of votes after a recounting had already been conducted in a Village Panchayat election.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned endorsement is upheld as the earlier direction for consideration has been complied with by recounting the votes, and there is no provision for further recount.
Law Points
- Election law
- Recounting
- Village Panchayat
- Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act
- 1993
- Writ jurisdiction
- No provision for further recount
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (12) 28
W.P.No.38552/2015 (LB-ELE)
Sri V.S. Ravindra Holla (for petitioner), Sri V.G. Bhanuprakash (for respondent No.1)
The Returning Officer cum Tahsildar, Tarikere Taluk and Sri Palaksha
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 an endorsement rejecting further recounting of votes in a Village Panchayat election.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the endorsement dated 30.06.2015 and direction for further recounting.
Filing Reason
The petitioner lost the election by a narrow margin of two votes and sought recounting; after recounting was done, he was informed that no further recount was permissible.
Previous Decisions
Earlier writ petition W.P.No.24656/2015 was disposed on 17.06.2015 directing the Returning Officer to consider the representation for recounting.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a further recount of votes after a recounting had already been conducted.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he lost by a narrow margin and sought recounting.
Respondent No.1 contended that recounting had already been done and no further recount was permissible under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
Once recounting of votes has been conducted in a Village Panchayat election, there is no provision for further recount under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The court's direction for consideration is satisfied by the recounting already done.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent No.1.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 30.06.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Tarikere, informing him that as the representation submitted by the petitioner for recounting the votes had been already considered by recounting the votes polled in the election held for Anuvanahalli Village Panchayat, Tarikere Taluk, there was no provision for further recount.
Indeed, petitioner had approached this Court earlier in W.P.No.24656/2015.
In the light of this grievance made, this Court while disposing W.P.No.24656/2015 on 17.06.2015 issued a direction to the Returning Officer to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders.
Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Returning Officer has already considered the representation and has passed the impugned endorsement. Therefore, the direction issued by this Court has been complied with. Hence, no further direction can be issued.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed W.P.No.24656/2015 seeking recounting, which was disposed on 17.06.2015 directing the Returning Officer to consider the representation. The Returning Officer then issued the impugned endorsement dated 30.06.2015 rejecting further recount. The petitioner filed the present W.P.No.38552/2015 challenging that endorsement.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993:
