Smt. Aluvelamrna vs State Election Commission

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—The rejection of the Petitioner''s nomination for election to the membership of the Taluk Panchayath -Pathapalya Constituency of Bagepalli taluk by order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure-A) of the Returning Officer - 3rd Respondent has resulted in this petition.

Although the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that under Section-17 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the Returning Officer ought to have extended an opportunity of atleast a day for the say of the Petitioner over her nomination if found invalid and having not followed that procedure, calls for interference, I am not inclined to accept that contention.

It is not in dispute that Section-19 of the Act provides grounds for declaring election to be void, of which Clause-(c) of Sub-section (1) specifically provides for improper rejection of nomination paper. Therefore the Petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of questioning the validity of the election, before an Election Tribunal.

In the facts and circumstances, the observation of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Election Commission of India Through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others, is apposite:

For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove:

1) If an election (the term ''election'' being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections.

2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to "calling in question an election" if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election.

3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law.

4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the Court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is sei for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court.

5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilize the Court''s indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the Court would act with reluctance and shall not act except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material.

Having regard to the principles laid down in Ashok Kumar''s case and applying the same to the facts of this case, intervention sought for by the Petitioner would have the effect of interrupting, obstructing and protracting the election proceedings and therefore judicial remedy ought, to be postponed till the completion of the election.

In the result, petition is devoid of merits and accordingly rejected.