Karnataka High Court

Dr. Madhusudhan Kariganoor And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 23 November, 2023

Author: R.Devdas

Bench: R.Devdas

                                                -1-
                                                  NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
                                                          WA No. 200125 of 2021
                                                      C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                              PRESENT

                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
                                                AND
                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                             WRIT APPEAL NO.200125 OF 2021 (CS/EL/M)
                                              C/W
                             WRIT APPEAL NO.200059 OF 2022 (CS-EL/M)

                       W.A.NO.200125 OF 2021:

                       BETWEEN:

                       1.   DR. MADHUSUDHAN KARIGANOOR
                            SON OF K ESHWARAPPA
                            AGED 51 YEARS
                            RESIDING NEAR AMRUTHESHWARA TEMPLE
                            VIJAYAVITTALA NAGAR
                            SIRUGUPPA, BELLARY - 583 121
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR               2.   DR. SIDIGINAMOLA MENASINA SOMNATH
Location: High Court
Of Karnataka                SON OF LATE. S.M.VIRUPAKSHA
                            AGED 54 YEARS
                            RESIDING AT B.S.COMPUND
                            MOKA ROAD,
                            GANDHINAGAR, AMARPURA
                            BELLARY - 583 103.

                       3.   DR. YOGANANDA REDDY Y.C.
                            SON OF CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY H.
                            AGED 53 YEARS
                            RESIDING AT PRUTHVI CHILDREN HOSPITAL
                            Y.NAGESH SHASTRI NAGAR
                            BELLARY - 583 103.
                              -2-
                               NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
                                       WA No. 200125 of 2021
                                   C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022



4.   DR. HONNEGOWDA
     SON OF LATE. JAVAREGOWDA
     AGED 67 YEARS
     SHARADA NURSING HOME
     SHANKARA MUTT ROAD
     K.R.PURAM, HASSAN 573 201.

5.   DR. RAVINDRA R.
     SON OF M. RAMAIAH
     AGED 57 YEARS
     RESIDING AT 'SUGUNA' # 652
     12TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK
     RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

6.   DR. RAVI K.
     SON OF S. KRISHNAPPA
     AGED 42 YEARS
     RESIDING AT B-009
     MITTAL PANORAMA
     APARTMENTS, K.C.NAGAR
     MYSORE - 570 011.

7.   DR. PAVANKUMAR NINGANAGOUDA PATIL
     SON OF NINGANAGOUDA
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
     OFFICE AT D.N.B.PATIL HOSPITAL
     MULGUND NAKA, GADAG - 582 103.

8.   DR. SUDHIR R. JAMBAGI
     SON OF REVANASIDDAPPA
     AGED 50 YEARS
     RESIDING AT SHRAVYA, 1ST MAIN
     2ND CROSS, NARAYANAPURA
     DHARAWAD - 580 008.

9.   DR. RAVI N.
     SON OF NINGAPPA N.S.
     AGED 41 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO.612
     5TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS
     M.C.LAYOUT, VIJANAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 040.
                            -3-
                             NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
                                     WA No. 200125 of 2021
                                 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022



10. DR. SHARANBASAPPA S.KARBHARI
    SON OF SIDRAMAPPAKARBHARI
    AGED 52 YEARS
    C/O. KARBHARI HOSPITAL
    NEAR TOYOTA SHOWROOM
    SWASTIKNAGAR, RING ROAD,
    GULBARGA - 585 105.

11. DR. SHANTESH PATIL
    SON OF PATIL A.M.
    AGED 50 YEARS
    RESIDING AT "SHIVASHREE"
    H.NO.1-1496/3
    GODUTAI NAGAR
    KALABURAGI - 585 102.

12. DR. VEERABHADRAIAH T.A.
    SON OF LATE CHIKKAADAVAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
    RESIDING AT "MUNAL" 7TH CROSS
    VIDYANAGAR, TUMKUR 572 103.

                                              ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DORE RAJ. B.H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
     (MEDICAL EDUCATION)
     M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
     REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY.

2.   RETURNING OFFICER
     ELECTION TO THE KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL
     AND THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
     SOCIETIES
     BENGALURU DIVISION, SAHAKAR SOUDHA
     8TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
     BENGALURU - 560 003.
                          -4-
                           NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
                                   WA No. 200125 of 2021
                               C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022



3.   THE REGISTRAR
     KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL
     NO.16/2, 2ND FLOOR
     MILLER TANK BED AREA
     VASANT NAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 052.

4.   DR. GACHINAMANI NAGANATHA
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
     OCCUPATION MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
     RESIDING AT DARGA ROAD
     KALABURAGI - 585 101.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLAHARAO, AAG AND
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1;
SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI BASAVARAJ S.SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI ANANT S. JAHAGIRDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.211065 OF 2020 (CS-
EL/M) AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND
CICUSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE.

W.A.NO.200059 OF 2022:

BETWEEN:

PANDURANGA GHAVG
THE RETURNING OFFICER
FOR ELECTION TO THE KARNATAKA
MEDICAL COUNCIL AND THE JOINT
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
                          -5-
                           NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
                                   WA No. 200125 of 2021
                               C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022



AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
     (MEDICAL EDUCATION)
     M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
     REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY

2.   THE REGISTRAR
     KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL
     NO.16/2, 2ND FLOOR
     MILLER TANK BED AREA
     VASANT NAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 052.

3.   DR. GACHINAMANI NAGANATHA
     AGED BOUT 70 YEARS
     OCCUPATION MEDICAL PRACTITIONER
     RESIDING AT DARGA ROAD
     KALABURAGI - 585 101.

4.   DR. MADHUSUDHAN KARIGANOOR
     SON OF K. ESHWARAPPA
     AGED 51 YEARS
     RESIDING NEAR AMRUTHESHWARA TEMPLE
     VIJAYA VITTALA NAGAR
     SIRUGUPPA, BELLARY - 583 121

5.   DR. SIDIGINAMOLA MENASINA SOMNATH
     SON OF LATE. S.M.VIRUPAKSHA
     AGED 54 YEARS
     RESIDING AT B.S. COMPUND
     MOKA ROAD
     GANDHINAGAR, AMARPURA
     BELLARY - 583 103.

6    DR. YOGANANDA REDDY Y.C.
     SON OF CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY H.
     AGED 53 YEARS
     RESIDING AT PRUTHVI CHILDREN HOSPITAL
     Y.NAGESH SHASTRI NAGAR
     BELLARY - 583 103
                            -6-
                             NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
                                     WA No. 200125 of 2021
                                 C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022




7.   DR. HONNEGOWDA
     SON OF LATE. JAVAREGOWDA
     AGED 67 YEARS
     SHARADA NURSING HOME
     SHANKARA MUTT ROAD
     K.R.PURAM
     HASSAN 573 201

8.   DR. RAVINDRA R.
     SON OF M.RAMAIAH
     AGED 57 YEARS
     RESIDING AT 'SUGUNA' # 652
     12TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK
     RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

9.   DR. RAVI K.
     SON OF S. KRISHNAPPA
     AGED 42 YEARS
     RESIDING AT B-009
     MITTAL PANORAMA
     APARTMENTS, K.C.NAGAR
     MYSORE - 570 011.

10. DR. PAVANKUMAR NINGANAGOUDA PATIL
    SON OF NINGANAGOUDA
    AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
    OFFICE AT D.N.B.PATIL HOSPITAL
    MULGUND NAKA
    GADAG - 582 103.

11. DR. SUDHIR R. JAMBAGI
    SON OF REVANASIDDAPPA
    AGED 50 YEARS
    RESIDING AT SHRAVYA, 1ST MAIN
    2ND CROSS, NARAYANAPURA
    DHARAWAD - 580 008.

12. DR. RAVI N.
    SON OF NINGAPPA N.S.
    AGED 41 YEARS
    RESIDING AT NO.612
                              -7-
                               NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
                                       WA No. 200125 of 2021
                                   C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022



    5TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS
    M.C.LAYOUT, VIJANAGAR
    BENGALURU - 560 040.

13. DR. SHARANBASAPPA S. KARBHARI
    SON OF SIDRAMAPPA KARBHARI
    AGED 52 YEARS
    C/O. KARBHARI HOSPITAL
    NEAR TOYOTA SHOWROOM
    SWASTIKNAGAR, RING ROAD
    GULBARGA - 585 105.

14. DR. SHANTESH PATIL
    SON OF PATIL A.M.
    AGED 50 YEARS
    RESIDING AT "SHIVASHREE"
    H.NO.1-1496/3,
    GODUTAI NAGAR,
    KALABURAGI - 585 102.

15. DR. VEERABHADRAIAH T.A.
    SON OF LATE CHIKKAADAVAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
    RESIDING AT "MUNAL" 7TH CROSS
    VIDYANAGAR, TUMKUR 572 103.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1;
SRI BASAVARAJ R.SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI ANANT S. JAHAGIRDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R15)
    THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
ORDER   OF   THE   LEARNED    SINGLE     JUDGE   PASSED   IN
W.P.NO.211065/2020 DATED 07.06.2021 AND PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
    THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
R.DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -8-
                                 NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB
                                         WA No. 200125 of 2021
                                     C/W WA No. 200059 of 2022



                           JUDGMENT

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

These writ appeals arise out of elections to the

Karnataka Medical Council (hereinafter referred to as

'KMC', for short). Earlier, a writ petition in

W.P.Nos.40880-40882/2017 is said to have been filed

seeking a mandamus to hold elections as per the

Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961. The said writ

petition was disposed of on 12.12.2018 directing the then

Returning Officer to conduct elections in a manner

indicated therein. It is also not in dispute that there has

been some confusion regarding the renewal of

membership of the registered medical practitioners and

there were some allegations against the respondent - KMC

that renewal fee was being collected contrary to the

provisions of law. It is also not disputed that subsequently

an amendment was brought to the Karnataka Medical

Registration Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act',

for short). Section 19 of the Act was amended by the

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

Amendment Act, 2017 making provision for renewal of the

registration once in five years by paying prescribed fees to

the Medical Council. The amended provision would also

provide for a condition that such renewal would be

permissible only if evidence to the effect that the applicant

has participated or attended a minimum of thirty credit

hours of continued Medical Education Programme. Sub-

section (2) of Section 19 provides that the medical

practitioner who fails to renew his registration under sub-

section(1) would cease to be a registered practitioner

under sub-section(1) of Section 13 and the Registrar shall

remove the name of such practitioner from the Register

maintained under Section 12 of the Act. It is also not

disputed that the amended provision also was a subject

matter of writ petition in W.P.No.40580/2017 filed at the

hands of the Indian Medical Association and others. It has

been brought to the notice of this Court that various

directions have been given by this Court in the said writ

petition which is still pending consideration.

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

2. The 4th respondent herein filed the instant writ

petition in W.P.No.211065/2020 seeking the following:

" PRAYER

THEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, more so in the nature of mandamus and grant the following reliefs:

(i) Direct the respondent No.2 herein not to act upon the list of members for the purpose of election to the members of Karnataka Medical Council prepared by him, the copy of extract of portion of which is at Annexure-B;

(ii) Direct the respondent No.2 herein to prepare a list in conformity with the list published by the Registrar of Karnataka Medical Council under Section 26 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, and to permit only such persons whose registration is renewed as per law and whose names are enlisted in the list published under Section 26 of the Karnataka Medical

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

Council Registration Act, 1961, for the purpose of contesting and voting in the election to the post of members of Karnataka Medical Council in the election to be held on 23.01.2020, the copy of extract of portion of which list is at Annexure-A;

(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

3. Initially, an interim order dated 17.01.2020 was

passed by the learned Single Judge prima facie finding

that the respondent - Returning Officer sought to venture

into usurping the powers of the KMC by preparing a

separate list of voters for the purposes of holding the

elections. However, the very same learned Single Judge

who had passed the order, subsequently passed another

interim order dated 20.01.2020 while noticing the powers

conferred on the Returning Officer in terms of Rule 4 of

the Karnataka Medical Registration (Amendment) Rules,

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

2018. It was noticed that the amended provisions clearly

empowered the Returning Officer to hear any grievance of

the members who are omitted from the preliminary list.

Having noticed the said provisions, the learned Single

Judge held that respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein were

eligible to participate in the elections to be held on

23.01.2020. Therefore, the Returning Officer was directed

to permit all those members whose claims are

independently examined and separate orders are passed

strictly in terms of Rule 4(3) of the Amended Rules, 2018

enabling their names to be entered in the revised list

pursuant to the separate order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants who claim to

be the candidates who were elected in the elections held

on 23.01.2020, would submit that when such an order was

passed by the learned Single Judge, the prayer made in

the writ petition would become infructuous or at best the

writ petitioner should have challenged the said order, since

the said order would clearly go against the writ petitioner

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

who sought that the elections should be held in terms of

the list prepared and published by the KMC under Section

26 of the Act. However, it is submitted that despite the

elections being permitted to be held even in terms of the

order dated 20.01.2020, the writ petition was kept

pending without any specific order. Be that as it may, it is

submitted that there was no scope for the learned Single

Judge to further go into the matter, having regard to the

prayers made in the writ petition. However, while pointing

out to the impugned orders passed by the learned Single

Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit

that the learned Single Judge has proceeded beyond the

scope of the writ petition and has passed scathing remarks

against the Returning Officer and therefore the Returning

Officer has also filed one more writ appeal which is

connected to this writ appeal and is heard.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar

appears for the Returning Officer.

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

6. The learned counsel for the appellants would

further submit that despite the elections being held and

the said factum having been brought to the notice of the

learned Single Judge and it was prayed at the hands of the

respondents therein that the writ petition may be disposed

of, nevertheless, the matter was kept pending and the

application filed at the hands of the writ petitioner to stay

the declared results were entertained by the learned

Single Judge and consequently, though the appellants

herein were declared as elected, they were not permitted

to take charge as the members of the Council. Therefore,

the appellants herein filed an application before the

learned Single Judge seeking to vacate the orders of stay.

It is submitted that the learned Single Judge directed that

the said application will be considered along with the main

matter. Learned counsel would further submit that though

it was vehemently contended before the learned Single

Judge that having regard to the prayers made in the writ

petition and coupled with the fact that election were held,

nothing further survives for consideration, nevertheless,

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

the learned Single Judge framed the said contention as an

issue, "as to whether the elections being over, the

petitioner has to raise an election dispute under the Rules

thereof?".

7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar

appearing for the Returning Officer would submit that

there are any number of decisions of this Court and of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court which laid down the law

unequivocally that once calendar of events are announced,

no Court can pass any order that would cause interference

in the course of the elections. Reference is made to the

decision in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami & Ors. Vs.

Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors.

reported in AIR 1952 SC 64. Further, it is submitted that

in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardhan Swami (Moingiri

Maharaja) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadaka and anr. Vs.

State of Maharastra & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC

3982, it has been held that preparation of electoral roll

being an intermediate stage in the process of election and

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

the election process having been set in motion, it is well

settled that the High Court should not stay the

continuation of the election process even though there

may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while

preparing the electoral roll. It was therefore held that

since the election was already held and once the results of

election were declared, it would be open for the aggrieved

person to challenge the election of the Return Candidate, if

aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the

Election Tribunal.

8. Learned Senior Counsel would also point out to

a recent decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

the case of N.H. Sripad Rao Vs. The State of

Karnataka Department of Co-operative & Ors. in

W.A.No.420/2022 and connected matters dated

29.07.2022, wherein the Division Bench set aside the

order of the learned Single Judge insofar as the directions

given to re-hold the elections, while stating that such a

direction could not have been given by the learned Single

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

Judge since the results of the election could only be

challenged by filing a duly constituted election petition.

9. Having noticed that the thrust of the arguments

of the learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar and

the learned counsel for the appellants is directed towards

the scope of the writ petition and the fact that the learned

Single Judge is said to have gone beyond the scope of the

writ petition, learned Senior Counsel Sri Ameet Kumar

Deshpande, appearing for the contesting respondent seeks

to submit that there are many decisions of this Court and

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the writ Court

has the power to mould the relief, having regard to the

subsequent events which may be relevant for

consideration of the matter. In that regard, the learned

Senior Counsel seeks to place reliance on the following

decisions:

i) Ram Kumar Barnwal Vs. Ram Lakhan (Dead) reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3250,

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

ii) B.R. Ramabhadriah Vs. Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department, A.P. and others reported in AIR 1981 SC 1653, and etc.

10. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel

Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing for the Returning Officer

who is also an appellant in the connected writ appeal,

learned counsel Sri Dore Raj appearing for the appellants,

learned Senior Counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande

appearing for the contesting 4th respondent, the learned

Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the

respondent - State, learned counsel Sri Basavaraj S.

Sappannavar appearing for the Karnataka Medical Council

and on perusing the appeal papers, this Court is of the

considered opinion that having regard, prayers made in

the writ petition, it is clear that the learned Single Judge

could not have quashed the final voters' list published on

10.01.2020 by the Returning Officer or declared the

results of the election as quashed. Having regard to the

settled position of law, only an Election Tribunal is

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

permitted to declare the election or results of the election

as void or illegal and consequently set aside the same.

11. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

cited by the learned counsels for the appellants as well as

the learned Senior Counsel for the Returning Officer would

aptly summarize the essence of such judgments which

clearly hold that the legality of the process of election and

the declaration of results can be gone into only by an

Election Tribunal constituted for that purpose. The 4th

respondent herein had filed the writ petition seeking a

direction that the Returning Officer should prepare a list in

conformity with the list published by the Registrar of KMC

under Section 26 of the Act, 1961 and the Returning

Officer should permit only such persons whose registration

is renewed as per law and whose names are enlisted in

the list published under Section 26 of the Karnataka

Medical Council Registration Act, 1961. However, as

noticed herein above, the learned Single Judge who had

initially found that the Returning Officer could not have

- 20 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

published a separate list, however found that having

regard to the amended rules, the Returning Officer was

entitled to publish a separate list which would constitute

the final voters list and therefore having specifically

directed that the Returning Officer shall permit all those

members whose claims were independently examined and

separate orders are passed in terms of rule 4(3) of the

Amended Rules, 2018, was required to have disposed of

the writ petition itself. Unfortunately, the writ petition was

not disposed of and the matter was thereafter considered

beyond the scope of the writ petition.

12. We have noticed that in the case of Sant

Sadguru Janardhan Swami (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has clearly held that the High Court could

not have stayed the continuation of the election process

even though there may be some alleged illegality or

breach of rules while preparing the electoral rolls.

However, a challenge to the said illegality or breach of the

Rules while preparing the electoral roll would be

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

questioned by the aggrieved party only by filing a duly

constituted election petition before the Election Tribunal.

Therefore, this Court would not hesitate to hold that the

impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge

would go well beyond the scope of the writ petition.

Insofar as the judgments cited by the learned Senior

Counsel for the contesting respondent, there can be no

quarrel that this Court is entitled to mould the relief

having regard to the subsequent events. But the question

here is touching upon the scope of the writ petition,

moreso, in the matters of election.

13. During the course of the argument it has been

brought to the notice of this Court that some of the

persons who were aggrieved by the declaration of the

results filed an election petition in terms of Rule 19 of the

Rules. The Returning Officer having scrutinized the same

forwarded the petition to the State Government in terms

of Rule 19(6) of the Rules. However, it has been stated

that having regard to the impugned orders passed by the

- 22 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

learned Single Judge declaring the results of the election

as quashed, it appears that the State Government too

closed the election petitions. The orders were passed by

the State Government on 09.08.2021.

14. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel

Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande would submit that since this

Court is of the opinion that the only recourse that was

available to the 4th respondent herein was to file a duly

constituted election petition, however, having regard to

the fact that the writ petition was proceeded with and

elections were declared as quashed by the impugned

order, there was no reason for the 4th respondent to have

filed the election petition. The learned Senior Counsel

would submit that if this Court is of the opinion that the

results of the election and the preparation of the voters list

could be challenged by filing duly constituted election

petition, opportunity should be given to 4th respondent to

do so.

- 23 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

15. Consequently, we proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The appeals are allowed.


     ii)     The   impugned         order         dated      07.06.2021
             passed   by    the      learned        Single     Judge    in

W.P.No.211065/2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.

iii) However, since the State Government closed the election petitions that were filed by the aggrieved persons having regard to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and now that this Court has set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we direct the State Government to re-open the election petitions.

iv) If the 4th respondent is permitted to file an election petition in accordance with law, he may do so or having regard to the law of limitation, if it is not permissible for the 4th respondent to file an election petition at this length of time, then alternatively 4th respondent should be permitted to implead

- 24 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:8823-DB

himself in the election petition and contest the matter along with the persons who have already filed the election petitions.

v) Since the declaration of results were not given effect to consequent to the orders of stay passed by the learned Single Judge, the elected candidates should be permitted to take charge and complete the term from the date when they assumed office.

vi) Ordered accordingly.

At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel Sri Ameet

Kumar Deshpande would submit that since the results of

the election itself was declared as quashed and this

Court by order dated 28.09.2021 had stayed the election

for the post of President and Vice-President of the KMC,

the operation of this order should be stayed for a period

of four weeks to enable the 4th respondent to approach

the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently

oppose the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel.

- 25 -