Sri. M.C. Madegowda vs The Chief Election Commissioner, Karnataka State Election Commission, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore - 560001 and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—Sri. K.N. Phanindra, learned counsel to accept notice for respondent No. 1. Learned Government advocate to accept notice for respondents No". 2 and 3. The respondents No. 5 and 6 have entered caveat. Notice to respondent No. 4 is not necessary. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 07.01.2013 passed in Election Petition No. 1/2013. By the said order, the Tribunal has rejected IA. No. 2 filed by the petitioner herein seeking stay. While IA. No. 4 filed by the respondents No. 5 and 6 herein has been allowed and the interim order granted earlier has been vacated.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 6 who had absented himself for more than three consecutive meetings of the Grama Panchayath had incurred disqualification to continue as a member of the Grama Panchayath in view of the provision contained u/s 13(1)(c) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act. In that view, it is contended that the said person could not have participated in the elections which were subsequently held for the-posts of "Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha". Therefore, in such circumstances, since the respondent No. 6 was successful in the said election, the petitioner has instituted an Election Petition raising dispute with regard to the acceptance of nominations of the 6th respondent and permitting him to take part in the election process. In the said proceedings, initially the Court below had granted ad-interim stay based on IA. No. 2 which had been filed by the petitioner. On appearance, the respondents No. 5 and 6 herein filed IA. No. 4 seeking that the interim stay granted be vacated. The said applications in IA. Nos. 2 and 4 were taken up together by the Tribunal and disposed of by the order impugned herein.

A Perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal would indicate that the Tribunal having taken note of the provision under which the petitioner was contending that the respondents No. 5 and 6 were disqualified has also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Shivaram v. Assistant Commissioner, reported in Shivaram Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Others, wherein this aspect of the matter has been clarified by tins Court to hold that there would be no disqualification until the necessary orders are passed by the Election Commission. That being the position, when the Court below has taken note of the legal position and has arrived at the conclusion, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Election Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order does not call for interference. However, the Election Tribunal shall make all efforts to dispose of the Election Petition itself on its merits as expeditiously as possible. In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.