Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two election petitions filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by electors of 13 Davanagere Lok Sabha Constituency, challenging the election of the returned candidate to the 15th Lok Sabha in the election held on 30.04.2009. The petitions were clubbed and taken up for hearing by the Karnataka High Court. The petitioners sought a declaration that the election was void and a direction for fresh election. The returned candidate had served as Member of Parliament from 2004 to 2009. During his tenure, he recommended construction of bus shelters under the MPLAD Scheme. He nominated the Principal of GMIT as the implementing authority. It was alleged that the Principal was an employee and benamidhar of the returned candidate, as GMIT was run by a trust where the candidate was Chairman. This allegedly created a subsisting contract between the Government and the candidate through his employee, disqualifying him under Section 9A of the R.P. Act. The petitioners also claimed that the nomination paper was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer, objections were not duly considered, and the order overruling objections was pre-prepared. The scrutiny proceedings were adjourned from 11.04.2009 to 13.04.2009, leaving no time for withdrawal of nominations, which allegedly prejudiced the chances of the Congress candidate. Additionally, the initials of an independent candidate were erroneously shown as 'S.S.' instead of 'L.S.', misleading voters. Further, the petitioner alleged corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the R.P. Act, stating that the returned candidate and his agents threatened and used violence against supporters of the Congress candidate, leading to the death of one Kondajji, which interfered with the free exercise of franchise. The core questions involved were: (i) whether the returned candidate was disqualified under Section 9A due to a subsisting contract with the government; (ii) whether the nomination paper was improperly accepted; (iii) whether the adjournment of scrutiny vitiated the election; (iv) whether the error in initials amounted to a ground for voiding the election; and (v) whether the alleged acts constituted corrupt practice under Section 123(2). The petitioners argued that the entrustment of works to GMIT Principal violated MPLADS guidelines and the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. They claimed the contract was subsisting on the date of nomination. They also argued that the Returning Officer's conduct during scrutiny was improper. The respondent filed applications for rejection and striking out pleadings, which were partly allowed and partly dismissed. The matter went up to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeals and permitted the trial to proceed. The court’s analysis is not fully available in the provided excerpt. The judgment is incomplete, ending mid-sentence during the narration of objections. The court had reserved orders after hearing on 31.10.2013, but the final order is not captured. The final decision on the petitions is not mentioned in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election of the returned candidate is void on grounds of disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, improper acceptance of nomination, and corrupt practices under Section 123(2) of the Act.
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (01) 14
Election Petition No.2/2009 c/w Election Petition No.3/2009
Ko.Channabasappa, B.M.Halaswamy, Prabhuling K.Navadgi, M.B.Nargund, C.S.Shashikanth, P.S.Manjunath, T.P.Vivekananda
Prasanna Kumar, M.G. Thippeswamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Election petitions filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the election of the returned candidate to the 15th Lok Sabha from 13 Davanagere Constituency.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners, as electors, sought declaration that the election of the respondent is void and direction to the Election Commission of India to hold fresh election.
Filing Reason
Alleged disqualification of the respondent under Section 9A of the R.P. Act due to subsisting contract with government through his employee/benamidhar, improper acceptance of nomination paper, violation of MPLADS guidelines, corrupt practices of undue influence, and errors in candidate initials.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, respondent filed miscellaneous applications for rejection/striking out pleadings. By order dated 24.2.2010, certain paragraphs were struck out and respondent nos.2 to 28 deleted. Another application in E.P.3/2009 was dismissed on 22.6.2010. Supreme Court dismissed appeals on 8.3.2013 with interim orders directing trial to proceed.
Issues
Whether the respondent incurred disqualification under Section 9A of the R.P. Act due to a subsisting contract with the government.
Whether the nomination paper of the respondent was improperly accepted.
Whether the adjournment of scrutiny from 11.04.2009 to 13.04.2009 was in violation of Section 36(5) and vitiated the election.
Whether the erroneous printing of candidate's initials in the ballot paper rendered the election void.
Whether the respondent committed corrupt practice of undue influence under Section 123(2) of the R.P. Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The Principal of GMIT is an employee of the respondent and a benamidhar, and the contract works through him constitute a subsisting contract with the government, disqualifying the respondent under Section 9A.
MPLADS guidelines and KPWD Code were violated as no tenders were called and the implementing agency was not chosen by the District Authority.
The Returning Officer improperly accepted the nomination, and his order overruling objections was pre-prepared.
Scrutiny was illegally adjourned beyond 3:00 PM on 11.04.2009, leaving no time for withdrawal of nominations, which prejudiced the Congress candidate.
Showing a candidate's initials wrongly as 'S.S.' instead of 'L.S.' misled voters and affected the result.
The respondent and his agents threatened, abused, and used violence leading to the death of a supporter, constituting corrupt practice of undue influence.
Judgment Excerpts
The acceptance of the nomination paper of the returned candidate (the respondent herein) is in violation of Section 9A of the R.P.Act (Para 5)
The respondent also got the cost of the construction of the bus-shelters revised upward with a view to benefit himself. (Para 5)
Because of the shouting, threatening, violence, etc. indulged in by the said local MLA, the said Kondajji was pushed around and hurt. He died on the spot in the melee. (Para 10)
Procedural History
Election Petitions No.2/2009 and 3/2009 were filed challenging the election of the returned candidate. The respondent filed applications under CPC for rejection and striking out pleadings. By order dated 24.02.2010, in E.P.2/2009, certain paragraphs were struck out and respondent Nos.2-28 deleted. In E.P.3/2009, applications for rejection and striking out were dismissed on 22.06.2010. The orders were challenged before the Supreme Court; SLPs were filed, interim orders passed, and on 08.03.2013, the appeals were dismissed. The trial proceeded, and the matter was heard on 31.10.2013, and orders reserved.
Acts & Sections
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: 9A, 81, 83, 86, 100(1)(d)(i), 123(2), 36(5)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11, Order VI Rule 16
- Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999:
