Karnataka High Court
N H Boralingaiah vs P Prashantha on 30 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
MFA No. 8506 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8506 OF 2023 (MPA)
BETWEEN:
N.H. BORALINGAIAH
S/O LATE SRI. HONNAGIRIAIAH
AGED 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.103, KALANAGARA
T.K.ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR SHASTRY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. GURURAJ R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . P. PRASHANTHA
S/O SRI. PARAMASHIVA
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
by ANJALI M R/AT NO.3169/A, 60 FEET ROAD
Location: High INDIRANAGAR 1ST MAIN
Court of HAL 2ND STAGE
Karnataka
BENGALURU-560 038
2 . THE ELECTION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE CITY
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHANNAPATNA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160
3 . THE RETURNING OFFICER
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
MFA No. 8506 of 2023
HC-KAR
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, B.M.ROAD
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159
4 . THE ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER
IN THE OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR
CHANNAPATNA
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 160
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANANDA B.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1
[VIDEO CONFERENCE];
SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. CHANDINI S. HCGP FOR R3 & R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 27 OF KARNATAKA
MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.09.2023 PASSED IN ELC.NO.01/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, DISMISSING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE KARNATAKA
MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
MFA No. 8506 of 2023
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
The appellant-petitioner in Election Case No.1/2021
has preferred this appeal under Section 27 of the
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (in short 'KMC Act')
being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated
29.9.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Channapatna, sitting as the Election Tribunal. The
Tribunal, by the said impugned order, dismissed the
election Petition filed by the appellant questioning the
election of the first respondent to the post of Councilors of
Ward No.26 of the Channapatna City Municipal Council.
The appellant, having unsuccessfully contested the said
election, has specifically alleged that, the nomination of
the first respondent was invalid and that his election ought
to have been declared void under the provisions of the
KMC Act, 1964.
2. The factual matrix surrounding this dispute is
that, general elections to the Channapatna City Municipal
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
Council was scheduled in accordance with the calendar of
events published by the State Election Commission. The
calendar of events dated 29.3.2021 was issued under the
authority granted to the Election Commission by Article
243(ZA) of the Constitution of India and by the Karnataka
Municipalities Act, 1964. The last date for filing
nominations was, 15.04.2021, scrutiny was to take place
on 16.4.2021, the last date for withdrawal of nominations
was 19.4.2021 and polling was scheduled on 29.4.2021.
Further, the counting of votes and declaration of results
was to be conducted on 30.4.2021. In this election, the
appellant and first respondent were among the candidates
who filed nominations to contest from Ward No.26, a Ward
reserved for scheduled caste candidates.
3. It is the specific allegation of the appellant that,
the first respondent was not a validly qualified candidate
for contesting the said election as his name was not found
in the electoral roll of the relevant Municipal area on the
date the election process commenced. It was contended
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
by him that, the first respondent, a resident of Bengaluru
had on, 8.4.2021 applied for inclusion of his name in the
voters list of Ward No.4 of the Channapatna City Municipal
Council, and that the said name was allegedly inserted
into the voters list by way of a correction list published on
15.4.2021. The appellant contends that, such an inclusion
was in breach of the statutory mandate under the KMC,
1964 particularly under Section 14 of the Act, which
restricts any amendment inclusion or deletion in the
electoral rolls once the election process begins.
4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the
evidence adduced by both the parties, including oral
testimony and documentary records came to the
conclusion that, the inclusion of the first respondent's
name in the electoral roll was not in violation of the Act or
the Rules made thereunder. The Tribunal, further held
that, the first respondent had established sufficient
material to show his residence and connection to
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
Channapatna town and therefore, eligible to contest from
Ward No.26.
5. I have heard the arguments of both the side.
The learned Sr.Counsel Sri. Vighneshwar S. Shastry would
submit that, when the election process began, the name of
respondent no.1 was not included in the voters list of
Channapatna and subsequent to that, his name came to
be inserted so as to make him to contest the election for
the post of counselor from Ward No.26. He submits that,
in view of the circulars issued by the Government of
Karnataka and the mandatory provisions of KMC Act, the
very inclusion of name of respondent no.1 after beginning
of the election process i.e. publication of calendar of
events is against the provisions of the KMC Act and the
circular issued by the Government of Karnataka to that
effect. He would further submit that, the respondent no.1
had suppressed the material facts about his residence and
he was residing in Bengaluru. His name was appearing in
the voters list at Bengaluru and he was to get delete his
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
name from voter list, Bengaluru and apply for inclusion of
his name in the voters list of Channapatna. He would
submit that, in collusion with the officials of Election office,
he had got included his name. Therefore, his election to
the post of counselor is vitiated and is against the
provisions of the election laws.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for
respondetno.1 submits that, only on getting deletion of
name of respondent no.1 from the voters list at Bengaluru
well in time, respondent no.1 moved an application to
include his name in the voters list at Channapatna. There
was sufficient time granted for objections as mandated
under the KMC Act. After 7 days of filing the application,
his name came to be included and thereby he has fulfilled
all the requirements to contest the election for the post of
counselor from Ward NO.26. He justifies the dismissal of
the election petition filed by the petitioner-appellant.
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
7. The counsel for the municipality supports the
reasons assigned by the Tribunal and submits that, there
is no illegality or perversity in dismissing the election
petition.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant in support
of his submission, relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Shivappa Chanamallappa Jogendra Vs.
Basavannappa Gadlappa Bankar and Others -
1965 (2) Mys.L.J. 289
(ii) State of Karnataka and Others Vs. G.
Nagappa and Others - AIR 1975 SC 1708
(iii) Smt. Gowramma Vs. M.P. Moulamma and
Others - 2000 (1) Kant.L.J. 268
(iv) Smt. Lakshmidevi and Another Vs. Chief
Electoral Officer, Bangalore and Others - ILR
2017 KAR 2103
9. Having given my anxious consideration to the
facts of the case and consideration of the arguments of
both the side, on perusal of the material placed on record,
I am of the considered opinion that, there are no
justifiable grounds made out by the appellant so as to
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
interfere into the impugned judgment for the following
reasons:
Before discussing the factual aspects, let me analyze
the provisions of the KMC Act with regard to the election
of councilors. Section 13 of the KMC Act, 1964 provides for
the constitution of municipal councils and the election of
councilors. It mandates that, the State Government shall
divide the municipal area into wards and councilors shall
be elected to represent each such ward. Thus, the
legislative purpose of Section 13 is to ensure democratic
representation at the local level. However, this right is
circumscribed by the provisions which follow notably
sections 14 and 15 of the Act which prescribe the eligibility
of electors and candidates.
10. Section 14 of the Act provides for the
preparation of electoral rolls for each ward and vests the
responsibility for such preparation in the State Election
commission. This section is significant as, it establishes
that, each ward shall have a distinct electoral roll and that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
each roll shall be based on the relevant part of the
electoral roll for the legislative assembly constituency
within which the Ward is situated. The second provision to
sub-section (1) of Section 14 introduces an embargo on
any amendment, transposition, inclusion or deletion of
entries in the electoral roll after the last date for filing
nominations and before the completion of the election.
This proviso is intended to bring finality and certainty to
the list of electors who can participate in the election
either by voting or contesting.
11. The contention of the appellant that, no
inclusions in the voters list can be made after the issuance
of the calendar of events is premised on an interpretation
that treats the calendar date as the starting point of the
electoral process. However, a reading of Section 14 in its
entirety reveals that, the bar on changes applies only after
the last date for filing the nominations and not prior to
that. The implication is that, applications for inclusions of
names submitted before the cut off dates are valid and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
can be acted upon by the electoral authorities. In the
present case, as stated supra, the first respondent
submitted form no.6 on 8.4.2021, which was well before
the nomination deadline of 15.4.2021. Hence, the
inclusion of his name in the voters list was published on
15.4.2021 which does not suffer from any illegality as
alleged by the appellant now.
12. Section 15 of the Act lays down the
qualifications for candidates. It states that, a person shall
be qualified to be chosen as a counselor if his name
appears in the electoral roll of any ward within the
municipal area. It is not a requirement that, the candidate
must be a resident or a voter of the same ward from
which he is contesting. The emphasis is, on being an
elector within the municipality. The first respondent's
name having been included in the electoral roll of Ward
no.4 of Channapatna Municipality as on the date of
nomination, he satisfied the condition under Section 15 of
the KMVC Act. The parties to the election petition lead
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
sufficient evidence and even the petitioner got marked 26
documents in support fo his case in addition to he entering
witness as PW.1 . Even respondent no.1 also entered the
witness box and has produced three documents at Ex.R1
to R3 so also three other witnesses were examined as CWs
1 to 3 being the officials of the returning officer and
through them, Ex.C1 to C5 were marked. The learned
Tribunal took into account of all these aspects and
concluded that the first respondent had submitted valid
proof of residence in Channapatna, including a birth
certificate issued by Channapatna Municipal Council
indicating his birth in the said town and a lease agreement
dated 8.4.2021 showing that he had been residing in the
property located in Channapatna for three years preceding
the election and other official records linking him to that
Municipal area.
13. These documents produced by respondent no.1
and the officials of returning officer were not adequately
rebutted by the appellant.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
14. The submission that the lease deed was created
merely for the purpose of election was not established
with any convincing evidence. Mere suspicion is not a
ground to discredit the documentary evidence that is
otherwise in order. Furthermore, the sale deed executed
by the first respondent in favour of a family member in
respect of Channapatna property further corroborates his
claim of residing and having links to that locality. Thus,
the Tribunal rightly concluded that, the respondent was a
permanent residence of Channapatna and not an outsider
as alleged.
15. It is also necessary to note that the electoral
process is a time bound constitutional mandate and Courts
should be circumspect in interfering with the electoral
outcomes unless there is a clear and substantial breach of
legal provisions. The process of nomination and scrutiny is
entrusted to the returning officer who acts as a quasi-
judicial authority under the Statute. In this case, the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
Returning Officer accepted the nomination of the first
respondent upon verifying the electoral roll and relevant
documents. There is no evidence that, the returning officer
acted arbitrarily or overlooked any legal requirement. The
presumption of regularity attaches to such administrative
acts and the burden to rebut it lies on the person alleging
irregularity.
16. In this case, the appellant has made several
allegations regarding the timing of the correction list, the
absence of a formal voter slip, and inconsistency in the
serial no. of the electoral roll. These are technicalities
which do not undermine the core fact that, the first
respondent's name did appear in the electoral roll of the
municipal area on the day of nomination. The correctness
or otherwise of internal electoral administrative procedures
cannot be the basis for nullifying the mandate of the
electorate unless they result in a fundamental breach of
rights or statutory non-compliance.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
17. The appellant also sought a declaration that, he
be declared as the elected councilor in place of first
respondent. Such relief is extraordinary in nature and is
granted only in circumstances where the election of the
returned candidate is declared void and that the petitioner
is able to demonstrate that for the invalid nomination, he
would have secured the highest number of valid votes. In
the present case, although the first respondent secured
776 votes and the appellant secured 687 votes, there is no
finding that the votes secured by the first respondent were
invalidated. Hence, such substitution cannot be granted
merely because the appellant secured the second highest
number of votes.
18. Moreover, Section 21 of the KMC Act, 1964,
which provides the right to file an election petition and
also prescribes the grounds and the manner in which such
challenges are to be entertained. The petitioner must
clearly plead material facts and must be verified in
accordance with the requirements of the code of civil
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
procedure. The Tribunal found that, the petition filed by
the appellant, while procedurally maintainable, did not
make out a substantive ground under the Act for setting
aside the election. The Tribunal also noted that, all the
other contesting candidates were not impleaded as parties
to the petition, which is a procedural defect, though not
fatal in this case.
19. The interpretation placed by the Tribunal on
Section 14 and 15 of the Act is consistent with the scheme
of legislation. The provisions are to be read harmoniously
with the objective of ensuring the electoral rolls reflects
the correct state of electors as on the date of nominations
and not arbitrarily frozen at the instance of the calendar of
events. The Act contemplates dynamic rolls until the
nomination stage and only thereafter, mandates a freeze.
This is a logical construction meant to balance the rights of
genuine residence who may seek inclusion and the need
for certainty once the contest has crystallized.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29357
HC-KAR
20. This Court, is therefore of the considered view
that, the appeal lacks merit. The judgment and order of
the learned Tribunal is to be confirmed. There is no
perversity or illegality calling for appellate interference.
The election of first respondent as a councilor of Ward
No.26 of Channapatna City Municipal Council is not shown
to be vitiated by any legal infirmity or factual inaccuracy.
Therefore, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
Resultantly the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and order of Election
Tribunal dated 29.9.2023 in Election Petition
No.1/2021 by the Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC,
Channapatna is affirmed with no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
SK
