Mohan Krishna Shetty Since … vs Dinakar Keshav Shetty on 29 October, 2010

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