Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ambawwa vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4758-DB
WA No. 200211 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200211 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SMT. AMBAWWA W/O. KALLAPPA,
AGE 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR MAIN ROAD,
NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE,
KALAGI TALUK, DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585312.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. HEMA L. KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DHUTTARGAON DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585102.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI SUB-DIVISION,
DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585102.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, KALAGI TALUK,
DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585312.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4758-DB
WA No. 200211 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. THE RETURNING OFFICER
EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, KALAGI,
DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585312.
6. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER
NO. 16, 2ND & 3RD FLOOR, BALLARI ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU-560080.
7. PARVATI
W/O. JAGANATH
AGE MAJOR, OCC.HOUSEWIFE
R/O. WARD NO.4, KURABAR GALLI KALAGI
TQ. KALAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYKUMAR, AGA &
SRI.MALLIKARJUN C. BASASREDDY, GA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI.SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R5 AND R6;
SRI.MAHANTESH PATIL, ADV. FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2025 IN WP NO.
202396/2025 TO THE EXTENT OF REFUSAL TO GRANT INTERIM
DIRECTION TO THE RETURNING OFFICER AND GRANT INTERIM
DIRECTION PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION,
DIRECTING THE RETURNING OFFICER RESPONDENT NO. 5 TO
ACCEPT THE NOMINATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR WARD NO.
4 KALAGI TOWN PANCHAYAT AND PERMIT HER TO CONTEST
THE ELECTION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4758-DB
WA No. 200211 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This writ appeal is filed challenging the learned
Single Judge order passed in writ petition No.202396/2025
and the prayer is sought to set aside the impugned order
dated 11.08.2025, to the extent of refusal to grant interim
direction to the Returning Officer and grant interim
direction pending disposal of the writ petition, directing the
Returning Officer respondent No.5 to accept the
nomination of the appellant for ward No.4, Kalagi Town
panchayat to permit her to contest the election.
2. This Court vide order dated 14.08.2025 having
considered the grounds urged in the writ appeal and also
considering the peculiar facts in circumstances of the case
that, respondent No.4-Tahsildar cancelled the caste
certificate issued by him and noted that respondent No.4-
Tahsildar become functus officio and also considering the
factual aspects that, as a result of cancellation of caste
certificate circumvented respondent No.7 to elect in the
election without opposition.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4758-DB
HC-KAR
3. Having taken note of the said facts into
consideration, the said decision was taken in haste
notwithstanding the rejection of the nomination on
06.08.2025. It is found that, respondent No.5 did not
accept the nomination of the appellant, since the learned
Single Judge though considered the interim order for
staying the impugned order of cancellation of caste
certificate, but, not given direction to participate the
appellant in election proceedings. Hence, interim order
was granted permitting the appellant to contest for
election and also made it clear that, the election is subject
to the result of the writ petition as well as this writ appeal.
While passing that interim order made it clear that election
must be held and not stalled in the democratic process
must be followed in conducting the election. In view of
the said direction, the elections are held as per the
calendar of events.
4. Now the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.7 had filed IA No.4/2025 praying this Court
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4758-DB
HC-KAR
to stay the declaration of the results, pending disposal of
writ petition and also State filed an application for vacating
the interim order.
5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.7 would vehemently contend that, though an
observation is made that election is subject to the result of
writ petition and writ appeal and time bound direction may
be given to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ
petition. In the meanwhile, to give direction not to
announce the result.
6. The learned counsel appearing for State also
would vehemently contend that the interim order granted
by this Court is liable to be vacated and in support of the
contention of learned Additional Government Advocate
also furnished the list of authorities namely, (i) Shaji K.
Joseph vs. V.Viswanath & Others1, (ii) West Bengal
State Election Commission & Others vs. Communist
(2016) 4 SCC 429
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4758-DB
HC-KAR
Party of India (Marxist) & Others2, (iii) State of Goa
& Another vs. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh & Another3 and
(iv) NBCC (India) Limited vs. State of West Bengal &
others4 and brought to notice of this Court the very
proviso of Section 243K particularly relying upon the
judgment of West Bengal (supra) in paragraph Nos.10,
15, 16, 17 as well as 20 and also other judgments would
contend that, granting of the interim relief by the Court is
amounts to interference in the election process.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, considering the material available on record
and prayer in the writ appeal before this Court is only with
regard to direction to the Returning Officer and grant
interim direction pending disposal of the writ petition to
accept the nomination of the appellant and hold the
election. This Court having considered the grounds, which
(2018) 18 SCC 141
(2021) 8 SCC 401
(2025) 3 SCC 440
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4758-DB
HC-KAR
have been urged in the writ appeal taken note of the
factual aspects and peculiar facts of the case on hand, the
process was already commenced and intermediate order
was passed by the Tahsildar for canceling the very caste
certificate issued by himself and without affording an
opportunity to the appellant considered the interim prayer.
Though, learned Single Judge passed an order of staying
the said cancellation of caste certificate but fails to grant
the relief as sought, but, this Court having considered the
same, when the caste certificate was cancelled and
consequent upon cancellation of the same caste certificate,
the appellant could not participate in the election and only
reason for cancellation of caste certificate the nomination
of the appellant was cancelled and respondent No.7 as a
result of the rejection of nomination, he was elected
unopposed and when such being the circumstances and
having considered the factual aspects that, respondent
No.5 circumvented the appellant not to participate in the
election and considering the cancellation of the caste
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4758-DB
HC-KAR
certificate elected him without any opposition and
considered the interim prayer.
8. Taking note of the said peculiar facts in
circumstances of the case, this Court directed to hold an
election in a democratic manner and made it very clear
that, if any such elections are also held, the same is
subject to the result of the writ petition as well as this writ
appeal. When such an order has been passed permitting
to participate in the election and accordingly when the
elections are held and this Court cannot consider the
prayer of the respondent No.7 not to declare the elections
and we do not find any substance in the contentions of
learned counsel for respondent No.7 and granting such
relief as sought by respondent No.7, it would comes to
within the scope of interference of conducting the elections
and this Court while permitting to hold elections also did
not interfere with an election process since the calendar of
events already published and only direction was given to
for smooth functioning and conducting of elections. Hence,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4758-DB
HC-KAR
the very contention of learned Additional Government
Advocate that comes within the purview of interfering with
the election process cannot be accepted. The permitting
of the appellant to participate in the election also cannot
be precedent in future also and only considering the
factual aspects of the case that, without providing an
opportunity to the appellant his caste certificate was
cancelled in hasty manner and also forbidden him from
contesting the election, rejecting his nomination. When
such materials available before this Court without
expressing any opinion on the grounds, which have been
urged in the writ petition and already this Court granted
the relief as sought in this writ appeal.
9. The learned Single Judge is directed to consider
the material on record and dispose of the same, the result
of the candidature of the appellant and respondent No.7
subject to the result of writ petition.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4758-DB
HC-KAR
10. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is
disposed of.
11. All the contentions are kept open to be urged
by the appellant, respondent No.7 and also the State.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
AMM
CT:JLR
