IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6*" DAY or DECEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'Bi_E MR. JUSTICE Asnoxp,H1NcHi:e§Ei;2:"r~f: .4"
WRIT PETITION No.36716/20710 {Ls-?E'LEEj
BETWEEN:
Sri K.S. Ravinclra Kukkudige,
S/o Sidde Gowcla, .
Age 50 years,
Herur Post, Koppal Taluk, -. 2
Chickamagalur District.» _ Petitioner
(By Sri'.}.a§'*yai~:::u'Vnfiar :'Pati|.,Sr.,'Adyo'cate for
Sri _M*a>Vn'mo ha'l'!.:P, N :AAdx{o cate)
AND:
1. The State Election'Comm"i'ssiq.n,
Cunningham Road, . '
Bangalore ~--"56'O Q5«2,7--._
Represented by Commissioner.
df'?he,"Sta;tey "via rnataka,
y_E}'eparl:n~..en': "elf Panchayat Raj,
l-'l_.'S.___Buivld'i_~n_g,~.l:3iangalore. Respondents
(E:-..y’Svri”‘K.N. Phanindra, Advocate for R–1,
~~S_ri’:.H.T. Narendra Prasad, HCGP for R-2)
“«.”‘r!r1is”writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
2_’–.V_Co.nSti’tut’i’o’n of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari and
: ~{qet_ash the order dated 1.1.2008 passed by the R1 produced as
A An.n’e’xure-A and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
QRDER
The petitioner has raised the challenge
respondent’s order, dated 1.1.2008 (Annexure–A)
the petitioner for a period of 6 years inffexercise offti4.ie_ :p’oAweVr:
conferred by Section 308–C of the l_(arnaAta__k>aéanchairat
1993 (‘the said Act’ for short).
2. Sri Jayakumar Sf. Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri Manmohami.-‘§?’;l;l.;ffoVr– the submits that
the petitioner was. to Chickamagalur
Zilia in 2005. The
petitioner as a }D(S) candidate. The
said political petitioner that the party itself
would filefigthe. expendiltureiireturns with the Returning Officer.
rigereartefr, t_he_petit,ioner left 3o(s) and joined BJP. The learned
Senior.Counlsel”_§wo~u’i’d. therefore submit that 39(5) appears to
Vir__ha~;e |ost.””‘inte:rest””lin filing the election returns of the petitioner,
.1 ‘i*.es,_.chvanged the party. He also submits that the notice,
if.”v’..:da.ted'”£i;5}2006, to which a reference is made in the impugned
‘ oi’–dVe’r”is not served on the petitioner at all. He submits that the
notice, which is produced as Annexure-R2 with the State
&BH.
Election Commission’s statement of objections, does not bear
the acknowledgement of the petitioner.
3. Sri K.N. Phanindra, the learned counsel
respondent State Election Commission Vslubmits -;th,at._under”‘.
Section 308-B of the said Act, the p.e_titioner:’was reguired’~ tlo:rf’i*i.e’~
the account of the election e><pense§._,,,,'\¢:)q:ithin onepmon=thV"if:rom'V'the
date of declaration of the élpetitioyner has
failed to discharge the obligatiVo:nsA,_ca'stxiJ|3<s,,j':.ii.'i:ijti._',by the statute.
Even on the failure' .. the expenditure
returns, the mechanically passed
the order of A E
4. Sri Pihanindra’ to give the fairest of fair
oVppo_rtuni.ti5esV:to theV”petit_i_oAn:er, the Election Commission issued
the*._notice., d.avted’i.,§”;~5_,2006. As the said notice has not evoked
:–“a_the fi’.li’n,g’—.iofvv.’the account of election expenses, the Election
w’7,.Cor.nmissihon_has htly passed the impugned order.
A .._Ej§:ii’squalification order visits the person with serious civil
pofitical constituencies; it attaches stigma to the person. It
it’—-.\,AVis’*itherefore necessary that full opportunity has to be given to a
QBH.
party before passing any order in the matter. Giving fuii
opportunity aione would be in keeping with the iegisi_at_ive
intentmerit and provisions contained in Section 3G8–C_.di.’thie’js:ajid:____” _
Act. Section 308C of the said Act reads as,foii_ows_;’-3″cf». g .
”3osc. Failure to Iodse an-l of ”
election expenses.— If V State ~ _uEie’C.’i:’.-.”_:C’>”l’:’
Commission is satisfied that any__p’erso.n:–
(a) has failed tdlodge election
expenses within theutime_and’*in”*–tl?e manner
required ‘under this Act} –and___f’
(b) has’::-no:ggoodirelasoh”orvjustification for the
i
the State “Electionf<liCe.n7mission shall by order
published in'« the VCiffiCiai'~~~C:'azette declare him to be
flvdisqutzlified xand"a;-'3y_____sL.'ch person shall be disqualified
V" for.aipe_riod.of–.six years from the date of the order.
the.ins,tant case, the petitioner's defence is that it
"–l«i.?v§Is__'a-greed iigon by the JD(S) that it wouid file the expenditure
account of the petitioner changing the party, the
not fiied the expenditure retiirns. Whether it 'is a
Vliicllgipiauwsibie explanation or not, is for the Commission to decide.
HEM.
5
But this explanation is required to be considered by the
Commission.
7. This Court compared the petitioner’s signature foiiiV_ndio_n
the vakalath with the signature found on the
9.5.2006 (Annexure~R2). The two signatures do«’ho’t~t’alIy’.t Thispié C
is another circumstance to doubt as to”~,whjethter’itthe _”petiti’o.n”e1r_:
has received the notice issued by thefilyyection Comrin:i’ss.i._0«ne,MV
8. For the aforesaid. preasonslf”the-.._irnp’u’gn.edborder is
quashed. The Election Comn’i’i’slsion”tisfidirectediwitoreconsider the
matter affording theVo.ppo_rtu§1’ity’hearing petitioner and
thereafter take a ~deci”si’on”iinithe—-matter in accordance with law.
The petitioneréis divrecteady present before the Election
Co_mmissiyo_h’ “at. 11.3’O.._a.Vm. :on 14.12.2010 without waiting for
any nntic.e_ f rom the’~..Commissi on.
9} pFurther}j’tftr.hat cannot be ignored is that the petitioner is
.fljput’ting the ..a’v{>idab|e strain on the machinery of the Election
by not filing the expenditure returns within one
“hfgm_on”thV’g;frorn the date of the declaration of the results in
December 2005. He is therefore liable to pay a cost of ? 7,500/-
.to the State Election Commission on or before 14″‘ instant.
H8!-l.
MD
10. This petition is accordingly disposed of.