IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED "rms THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER. 2010f Vi' ~.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.G..SAf§fiAfiiT£
1vI1sc.cvL. No.192£s«2/iioia
IN . .
£;%QQ§" .
BETWEEN
MORAN KRISHNA SI~1E'IT\z *
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS I .
S/0 KRISHAN SHETIY
occ:BUS1NESS'»__1'~ _ I
R/O 'SAHANA';--..NELLL1KEP.I _ ._
KUMTA, V' I. '
DISTRICT 'I ~
SINCE 1:)EcE}ISED...I§EPRES.EI»JTI:D BY
SMT. SIIARADA " -~ *
W/0 MoI1ArJ.VSIaI:ITYI._, ' ~
AGEDABOUT 45 YEARS,
- 0CC':~"~:BU_SIN_ESS « ..... .. »
R/VAT: 'SA'IIA2~1A', NELLIKERI.
'-- 'I--:1J'IVIA'I'A,' ' » * "V ._
'UTTAR DISTRICT.
.. .PETI'I'IONER
"(BY SRIRCG. HEDGE, ADV.)
1,? DINAKAR KESHAV SHETTY
' AGE: MAJOR, KOPALAKARVADI.
KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
. G. NATHKUMAR GOUDA
AGE: MAJOR, MELINAKERI,
13.0. GOKARNA,
KUMTA TALUK
. SHASHIBHUSIIAN HEGDE
AGE: MAJOR, 294/5,
OLD FISH MAKET ROAD, .
KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICTS. A. I C
. GANESH GANAPATHI HEGDE
AGE: MAJOR. MATHRUCHAYA;
BEHIND CANARA HEALTH CARE CENTE, «_ " "
BAGGAN, KUMTA TALUK " " -. ' --
. TIPPAYYA NAGAPPA NI*§mKA__ I A}
AGE: MAJOR, MATHOEIIIR,
KALABAGA, KUMTA TI'ALUI§ '
. BANDARI Is;1IOé;1§1AN*Dj_ -__KI'\INP.PPP. I
AGE: MA:IOR;"msABA;Ii';: I
KARI:I1e;ODvIV, "£iL2'b_INB.VAR'T$II.IUVI§v
. SHE'? sA'»rIfI::,sH'RIO<HAIR - I
AGE:'I\/IAIIOR. HALE "I~IE'RAVA'rTA,
KALABACA POST,' KLJMTA TALUK
. 'IHE"RETURN.I1SIG OFFICER
7':_8'=~K;UMTA ASSEMEY CONSTITUENCY AND
I 1' « .fI":~IE P.SS_ISTANT COMMISSIONER
KU1}/ITA' DIVISION, KUMTA
. '{I'ETAE{A_.I{AI\IEFiADA DISTRICT
. A'I'"'IrIE ELECTION OFFFICER
AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
{RESPONDENT NOS. 8 8: 9 ARE DELETED VIDE ORDER
DT. 9.4.2010}
. . .RESPONDEN’I’S
{BY SRIYUTHS NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. ADV., FOR
VISHNU D. BHAT, ADV, FOR R1, DIWAKAR &
ADVS. FOR R3)
Misc. CVL. 19282/10 IS FILED U/O 14 ;s:~.[‘_« _
cpc PRAYING TO RECAST Ti-1E ISSUE N’C)__.1.iN iTI41″E_f
MANNER STATED THEREIN THE _-ENTE_LfRESfI’«_Oif «.
JUSTICE.
THIS Misc.cVL. comma ON ifoié o12oERs
DAY, THE COURT MADE TIiE.__FOLlLQWING:at»”
v
Application is filed for-‘*’*anien’drnentAof the first
issue by deleting the franied at
S}. No. 1.
” It application that issue
No.1 deals’~«,dWitl’i:_ ti1e”…’leontention of the petitioner
..,reg;ir3din.i§ not taiiingvinto account the valid postal ballot
the postal ballot papers from count
without asstigiiing any reasons. However, white framing
isstieig it is wrongly typed as “Whether the petitioner
Vfltirofvues that the Returning Officer has not violated?
it :Vll_yV\_Iherefore, the word “not” should be deleted.
We
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
first respondent submits that since the error is
typographical the same may be corrected.
4. In View of the submission of””thef.c”c;V1,11′:se1c_it”= it
appearing for the parties,
amendment is allowed. T i:e’v”fi_rst ‘shv:ai1ti._’b.eVVVr.ead
after deleting the word the
application as followszv A _. .
“(1) Whethe-r__ ‘that the
Returning rules of
counti11§:ir\/5/4;’; 52, 66 and in
particular Ruie of*_the’iVConduct of Election
V.Ri11es;k’19’81;i’ nottaiiing into account Valid
and rejecting the postal
._ }3a11t5t.__pap~er:s.j’:from count without assigning any
” ” — .. r’eason?”‘v ”
BN5