The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC. The Court observed that the concerned Authority shall take into consideration the service that there is no opportunity given to any of the contestants to rectify any defects pointed out during the scrutiny and as aforesaid, the scrutiny is carried out only to separate the eligible and ineligible candidates.
Brief Facts:
The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner had submitted a caste verification certificate for the purpose of contesting the election on 17.12.2020, the same was not considered by the Returning Officer, and the nomination submitted by the petitioner was rejected on 17.12.2020. The Election Petition which had been filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC in Election Petition No.1/2021 and challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
Contention of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that immediately on coming to know that the caste certificate for the purpose of contesting an election was to be produced, the petitioner had produced the same on 17.12.2020 and therefore, the same ought to have been considered before the order of rejection since the said certificate had been produced before the rejection.
The Court noted that the short question that would arise for consideration for this Court is whether a candidate would have an option or opportunity to rectify the defects pointed out in the scrutiny of the nomination forms submitted and whether that rectification ought to be considered by the Returning Officer before rejecting the nomination form?
The Court observed that it is not the date of the scrutiny or the compliance after the scrutiny which is relevant but what is relevant in election matters is that all the relevant documents satisfying all the relevant criteria are to be submitted on or before the last date and time fixed for submission of the nominations. The law does not provide for scrutiny to be carried out and the objections raised in the scrutiny to be satisfied by a contestant. The scrutiny in the course of the election is only carried out for the purpose of determining the eligible candidate by deleting the ineligible candidates.
The Court said that non-production of relevant documents along with the nomination form would make the nomination form incomplete and liable for rejection. There is no opportunity given to any of the contestants to rectify any defects pointed out during the scrutiny and as aforesaid, the scrutiny is carried out only to separate the eligible and ineligible candidates.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the order of rejection passed by the Returning Officer is proper and correct.
Case Title: Smt. Manjula @ Manju v The Chief Secretary & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 17758 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Prasanna V R
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
