Sri T Devaraju vs Sri Mahadeva P
2022 Latest Caselaw 10528 Kant

                           1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

       WRIT PETITION NO.48810 OF 2015 (LB - ELE)

BETWEEN:

SRI. T. DEVARAJU,
S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.570/1, K R S ROAD,
HOOTAGALLI, MYSORE TALUK
& DISTRICT - 570 018.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARENDRA D.V.GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. MAHADEVA P.,
S/O LATE PUTTAMAADU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
MEMBER OF KOORGALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KOORGALLI, YELAWALA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT - 570 018.
                                   ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.R.SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

      THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2015 PASSED IN ELECTION PETITION
NO.1/2015, ON THE FILE OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
MYSURU, VIDE ANNEXURE - D AND ETC.

    THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               2




                           ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order

passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru in Election

Petition No.1/2015, dated 10.09.2015.

The petitioner was elected as the Upadhyaksha of

Koorgalli Grama Panchayat, Yelawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk on

15.07.2015. The same was challenged on the ground that there

is a mistake in the process of counting of votes and that the

Election Officer has after verifying the ballot paper, held that

one of the votes was invalid as per Rule 9(1)(c) and (d) of the

Karnataka Pachayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and

Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1995 (for short,

"Rules, 1995") and after completion of the counting process, it

was found that both the candidates had secured equal votes.

Therefore, the Election Officer decided to go for lottery as per

Rule 9(8) of the Rules, 1995 and declared the contesting

respondent as returned candidate.

Since the term of the election is already over, no useful

purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition alive.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sac*