Karnataka High Court

Sri.R. Basavarajappa vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB
                                                              WA No. 253 of 2025




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                            PRESENT
                          THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                               AND
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
                              WRIT APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SRI R. BASAVARAJAPPA
                        S/O. RUDRAPPA,
                        AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
                        COUNCILOR,
                        TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
                        CHANNAGIRI,
                        DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
                        R/AT WARD NO.15, CHANNAGIRI TOWN,
                        DAVANAGERE - 577 213.

                   2.   SRI B. HARISH
                        S/O. B. RUDRAIAH
                        AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
                        COUNCILOR,
Digitally signed
by PRABHAKAR            TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
SWETHA
KRISHNAN                CHANNAGIRI,
Location: High          DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
Court of
Karnataka               R/AT WARD NO.15, CHANNAGIRI TOWN,
                        DAVANAGERE - 577 213.
                                                                   ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI A. MOHAMAD TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
                   AND:

                   1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
                        M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001
                        REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB
                                          WA No. 253 of 2025




     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
2.   DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE - 577 005.

3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     ALSO RETURNING OFFICER
     DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE - 577 005.

4.   THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     CHANNAGERI,
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

5.   THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     ANNIGERI, ANNIGERI TALUK,
     DHARWARD DISTRICT - 582 201
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

6.   THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI,
     CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
     TUMKUR DISTRICT - 571 604
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

7.   THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     DEVANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 571 604
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

8.   THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     H.D. KOTE, H.D.KOTE TALUK,
     MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 125
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

9.   THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     HOSADURGA, HOSADURGA TALUK
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527
                            -3-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB
                                      WA No. 253 of 2025




    REPRESENTED BY ITS
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

10. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
    K.R. NAGAR, K.R. NAGAR TALUK
    MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602
    REPRESENTED BY ITS
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

11. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
    KUSHTAGI, KUSHTAGI TALUK
    KOPPAL DISTRICT - 583 277
    REPRESENTED BY ITS
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.


                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)


     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING

ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/01/2025 IN WP NO.21737/2024 BY

THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER.


     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                    -4-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB
                                                WA No. 253 of 2025




CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       N. V. ANJARIA
       and
       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN


                            ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

The challenge in the original petition at the instance of the

appellants was to the allocation of reserved seats for the posts of

the President and Vice-President of the Channagiri Municipal

Council.

2. Learned Single Judge refused to grant any relief and

dismissed the petition by observing inter alia that two

Co-ordinate Benches of this court had already upheld the

contention of the State regarding reservation to the posts of

Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and therefore, it would not possible

to take a different view.

3. Learned advocate Mr. A. Mohamad Tahir for the appellants

sought to submit that, the reservations stand in the breach of

statutory provisions.

NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB

4. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent Nos.1 to

3 appearing through learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish

is that all issues relating to the validity of the election could be

examined only in the election petition as provided under Rule 15 of

the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President)

Election Rules, 1965.

5. Rule 15 reads as under,

"Election Petition.- (1) The validity of the election of the President or the Vice-President may be called in question by a petition presented to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area within which the election has been or should have been held, within seven days from the date of declaration of the election by any candidate at such election or by three or more Councillors joined together as petitioners.

(2) Every petition under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.

(3) The petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition where the petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, the returned candidate.

NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB

(4) A petition under sub-rule (1),-

(a) shall contain a concise statement of material on which the petitioner relies;

(b) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings;

(c) any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.

(5) The petitioner may claim any of the following declarations,-

(a) that the election of the returned candidate is void;

(b) that the election of the returned candidate is void and that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected."

5.1 It would be seen from the above Rule that the validity of

election of a President or a Vice-President may be called in

question by a petition presented to the District Judge within seven

days from the date of declaration of the election by any candidate.

There is a remedy of filing of election petition available to the

appellants.

5.2 The issue of illegality or otherwise of the reservations

provided for the posts of the Presidents and Vice-Presidents would

indeed fall within the purview of the election petition contemplated

NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB

under Rule 15 as above, since the issue pertains to the validity of

election of the President or Vice-President, as the case may be.

5.3 It is trite principle that when a remedy in the nature of

election petition is available, the court would not exercise its

jurisdiction and the remedy for the aggrieved appellants is only to

file election petition. This is more particularly, in view of that the

election process has already been commenced.

5.4 From the Interim Application No.3 of 2025 which is for

production of additional documents filed by the appellants, it is

reflected that the office of the Tahsildar, Channagiri Taluka,

Channagiri has already issued election notification dated

17.02.2025 notifying the election schedule which is as under,

"Election Date: 28.02.2025 Location/Place: Municipal Council Hall, Channagiri

ELECTION SCHEDULE 1 Nomination Paper Date: 28.02.2025, from 10:00 Submission Date and AM to 11:00 AM Period 2 Nomination Paper Date: 28.02.2025, Friday, at Verification 1:00 PM 3 Withdrawal of Candidature Date: 28.02.2025, Friday, Period afternoon Immediately after the nomination paper verification is completed on 28.02.2025, Friday, within 10 minutes 4 Election Time if Required If an election is necessary, it will take place promptly after the withdrawal period."

NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB

5.5 As per the above schedule, the filing of nomination papers

has began today, in other words, the election process is underway

for the posts in question. When the election process is underway

as stated above, the only remedy available to the appellants is to

file election petition after the declaration of result as contemplated

under Rule 15 of the 1965 Rules.

6. In the aforesaid view, leaving it open for the appellants to

avail such remedy, if advised.

7. Without going into any aspects of the merits of the case of

the appellants, the present appeal is not entertained and it is

accordingly dismissed.