- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101197 OF 2024 (MPA-) BETWEEN: SHRI. LOKESH S/O CHANDRAHAS KAMBLE AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. FOOTWEAR BUSINESS R/O. H.NO. 405, WARD NO. 1 SAMAGAR ONI, AT KERUR TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. MODINSAB S/O GAIBUSAB CHIKKURA AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. SAW MILL WORK R/O. H.NO. 273, WARD NO.1, KILLA ONI, KERUR, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 2. SRI. SANTHOSH S/O MAHAGUNDAPPA HONKALIYAVAR AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. WARD NO.1, KILLA ONI, KERUR, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 3. SRI. SHRIDHAR S/O BASAPPA CHANDARAGI AGE. 39 YEARS, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:23:22 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 OCC. PRESS REPORTER R/O. WARD NO.1, KILLA ONI, KERUR, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 4. SRI. M.S.NADUVINAMANI RETURNING OFFICER AND SECRETARY APMC, BADAMI, R/O. WARD NO.1 TO 10 TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. 5. SRI. C.S. ANGADI ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY, APMC, BADAMI, R/O. WARD NO. 1 TO 10, KERUR TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587315. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH N. HOSAMANE, ADV FOR R1, SRI. SHAKTI PRASAD, ADV FOR R2, SRI. DAYANAND SANGRESHI, ADV FOR R4 & R5, NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.27 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.11.2023 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BADAMI IN ELECTION PETITION NO.02/2018 DISMISSING THE PETITION AND ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEL THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER : - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed by the Appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2023 in Election Petition No.2/2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami (‘Election Tribunal’ for short). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Election Tribunal. The Appellant was the petitioner, and the respondents were the respondents therein. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3.1. The Petitioner filed the Election Petition against the Respondents under section 21 of the Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964, seeking a relief of a declaration to declare that the election of Respondent no. 1 dated 31.08.2018 is null and void and to declare that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 Petitioner has been duly elected since he has secured second highest votes in the said election. It is the case of the petitioner that, Karnataka State Election Commission, vide its order SEC30/EUB/2018 dated 16.08.2018, ordered to conduct the election of Town Municipal Council, Kerur. Accordingly, the calendar of events were notified, ranging from 18.08.2018 to 03.09.2018. In pursuance of the election notification, the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 3 have submitted their nominations to the Returning Officer- Respondent No-4 for the election of the Councilor for ward No.3 of TMC, Kerur. The petitioner has submitted his nomination as an independent candidate and other respondents No.1 to 3 have also submitted their nominations. Respondent No.4 declared all the candidates were eligible to contest the election. The voting process was held on 31.08.2018 and the counting of votes was conducted on 03.09.2018. Respondent No.1 was declared as a returned candidate. It is contended that, respondent No.1 failed to disclose the material facts at the time of filing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 the nomination paper. Respondent No.1 filed an affidavit dated 16.08.2018; he failed to disclose the material facts regarding the assets and liabilities, etc of him and his dependents. Respondent No.1 has not submitted regarding the case pending against him in CC No. 167/2015. It is contended that, Respondent No. 1 has not disclosed the details of various properties standing in his and his dependents name. The act of respondent No.1 is punishable under the provisions of Sections 176, 177, 181, 199 and 200 of IPC. Accordingly, prays to allow the Election petition. 4. Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections stating that, he has submitted an affidavit to the Returning Officer, but denied the other allegations made against him in the petition by the petitioner. It is admitted that, he was declared as a returned candidate to the Municipal Council, Kerur. It is contended that, he has complied with all the relevant provisions of the State Election Commission relating to the filing of nomination papers. It is contended - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 that, the petitioner has filed the present petition without complying the statutory provisions of Section 21(1) and Section 21(3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The petition filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to reject the petition. 5. The Returning Officer filed- Respondent No. 4 a statement of objections contending that, all the nomination papers filed by the candidates were found to be correct and were received as per law. The objections raised by the petitioner are delayed. The petitioner ought to have objected all the relevant objectionable materials immediately after scrutiny of the nomination papers. The petitioner did not raise any objection after the scrutiny of the nomination papers. This Respondent has conducted the process as per law without any bias. Hence, prays to reject the petition against respondent No.4. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 6. The Election Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: “:ISSUES: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent No.1 has suppressed the fact of proper assets and liabilities with regarding to movable and immovable properties in the name of the respondent No.1 and his father in the nominations submitted for the election of Council for Ward No.3 of TMC Kerur? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent No.1 has suppressed the fact of pending of criminal case in Cr No.126/2014 (CC No.167/2015) against him registered by Kerur Police in the nominations submitted for the election of Council for Ward No.3 of TMC Kerur? 3. Whether the petitioner proves that, the respondent No.1 has played fraud on the respondent No.4 and 5 by suppressing the above fact? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for? 5. What order or decree? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, and marked sixteen documents as Exs.P1 to P16. In rebuttal, respondent No.1 was examined as RW-1 and marked 11 documents as Exs.R1 to R11. Respondent No.5 was examined as RW-2. 8. The Election Tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and assessing verbal and documentary evidence, answered issues No.1 and 3 partly in the affirmative, issues No.2 and 4 in the negative and issue No.5 as per the final order. The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964 was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.11.2023. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Election Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 petition even after holding issues No.1 and 3 partly in the affirmative and holding that respondent No.1 played fraud on the Returning Officer. He also submits that, respondent No.1 was arrayed as accused No.52 in a criminal case marked as Ex.P3 and P5 and he did not disclose the assets and liabilities in the affidavit, which is a mandatory requirement. There is non-compliance of mandatory provisions by respondent No.1. He also submits that, respondent No.1 had admitted in the cross-examination that, he has not mentioned regarding the pending criminal cases against him in the declaration filed by him. Hence, the Election Tribunal has committed a serious error in dismissing the election petition. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the judgment passed by the Election Tribunal and accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The points that would arise for consideration in this appeal, are: (1) Whether the petitioner proves that, the judgment passed by the Election Tribunal is erroneous? (2) What order? Point No.1: 13. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, has examined himself as PW-1. He reiterated the petition averments in the examination-in-chief and to prove his case, he has produced the following documents: 13.1. Ex.P.1 is the list of contesting candidates; Ex.P.2 is a certified copy of contested candidate list; Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of order sheet in Cr No. 126/2014; Ex.P.4 is a copy of F.I.R in Cr No. 126/2014; Ex.P.5 is a copy of charge sheet; Ex.P.6 is a certified copy an affidavit submitted by respondent No.1; Ex.P.7 is the application i.e., form No.12 filed by the petitioner of Pattana Panchayath, Kerur. Ex.P.8 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 is the RTC extracts of RS No.416/2, 337/4, 64/4. Ex.P.9 is the B register extract; Ex.P.10 is a copy of the blank form submitted to the Returning Officer; Ex.P.11 is the information given to the petitioner by the public information officer of Pattana Panchayth, Kerur; Ex.P.12 is a copy of an affidavit furnished by respondent No.1; Ex.P.13 is an encumbrance certificate; Ex.P.14 is a certified copy of order sheet in Cr No. 126/2014; Ex.P.15 is a certified copy of completer order sheet; Ex.P.16 is the memorandum submitted by the Kerur police. 14. In rebuttal, respondent No.1 was examined as RW-1, and he reiterated the statement of objections in the examination-in-chief, and produced the following documents: 14.1. Ex.R.1 is the RTC extract of the land bearing RS No.79/5 of Neranur village measuring 08A-29Gts, which is jointly standing in the names of the family members of the Petitioner; Ex.R.2 is the house tax assessment extract of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 house No.421 standing in the name of Chandrahas Ramchandra Kamble; Ex.R.3 is the house tax assessment extract of house No.405 of Kerur standing in the name of the petitioner; Ex.R.4 is the house tax assessment extract of house No.425B of Kerur standing in the name Smt. Gangavva Chandrahasa Kamble the mother of the petitioner; Ex.R.5 is the house tax assessment extract of house No.2272D/1 of Neharu nagar Kerur standing in the name of the father of the petitioner; Ex.R.6 is the house tax assessment extract of house No.2272D/2 of Neharu nagar Kerur standing in the name of the father of the petitioner; Ex.R.7 is the house tax assessment extract of house No.2272D/3 of Neharu nagar Kerur standing in the name of the father of the petitioner; Ex.R.8 is the house tax assessment extract of house No.2272D/4 of Neharu nagar Kerur standing in the name of the father of the petitioner; Ex.R.9 is the house tax assessment extract of house No.2272D/5 of Neharu nagar, Kerur standing in the name of the father of the petitioner; Ex.R.10 is the house tax - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 assessment extract of house No.2009D/355 of Neharu nagar Kerur standing in the name of the mother of the petitioner; Ex.R.11 is the letter submitted by PSI, Kerur to the APP of Sr. Civil Judge Court, Badami, that there are three criminal cases pending against the petitioner. 15. PW-1 in the course of cross-examination, admitted that, the affidavit submitted by the candidate along with nomination papers were displayed on the notice board and final list was also published after its due verification. He also admits that, he has not brought to the notice of Returning Officer about the defect found in the nomination paper and affidavit of respondent No.1. He admits that, a criminal case in Cr.No.126/2014 was registered against him and 60 others in Kerur Police Station and it is elicited that, he does not know the names of family members of respondent No.1 and it is elicited that the marriage of respondent No.1 was performed in 2003 and it is denied that he was separated from their family. He admits that RS No.79/5 is jointly entered in the name of his - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 father and grandfather, RS No.425B is in the name of his mother, RS No.421 is in the name of his father and RS No. 405 is standing in his name and he admits that, he has availed loan on the said property and the same was not disclosed in the affidavit submitted by him to the Returning Officer. He pleaded ignorance to the suggestion that, Kerur Police registered a case against him as rowdi-sheeter. 16. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, respondent No.1 has not declared the assets and liabilities and he has suppressed the said material facts. The Election Tribunal, considering the material on record, has recorded its finding in paragraphs No.23 to 25, which reads as follows: “23. Admittedly, the name of the respondent No.1 is not mentioned in the statement/complaint of the police, only 22 persons names mentioned in the complaint. Till submission of Ex.P.16 by the PSI, Kerur, seeking permission for further investigation in the matter, there is a dispute about the identity of the accused person regarding the names and sur names of the accused and their father names as shown in Ex.P.16, only after further - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 investigation conducted by the PSI Kerur Police station he has additionally mentioned the name of the father of the respondent No.1 is Jonnappa @ Gaibusab Chikkura and accordingly he has submitted the additional charge sheet as per Ex.P.15. Therefore, the respondent No.1 has subsequently, appeared before the court and obtained the bail. So, the documents produced by the petitioner itself clearly indicates that the name of the respondent No.1 was not mentioned in FIR, in the charge sheet the name of the accused No.52 mentioned as Modinsab S/o Jonnappa Chikkura. The respondent No.1 refused to receive the summons on the ground that his father name is not Jonnappa and hence the IO again seeking permission from the court for further investigation and later submitted the additional charge sheet by showing the name of the accused No.52 as Modinsab S/o Jonnappa @ Gaibusab Chikkura. So till submission of the additional charge sheet by the IO the respondent No.1 was not aware of the case registered against him. Even in the cross examination R.W.1 also he has specifically deposed that the name of his father is not Jonnappa but Gaibusab Chikkura. Therefore, he has not received the summons and even the police have also not executed the warrant against the respondent No.1. The IO has also not complied the provisions of section 41(H) of Cr.PC for collecting the information from the respondent No.1. Under these circumstances, I am of the clear opinion that the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 respondent No.1 was not aware of the case registered against him showing him as accused No.52 on the date of submission of his nomination papers in respect of the election. 24. As per as non-mentioning/disclosing about pendency of the criminal case in the affidavit of the respondent No.1 submitted to the Returning Officer is concerned. No doubt the respondent No.1 has not mentioned the said aspect, even in his nomination form the very provision of form No.5(b) is not at all get printed with regarding to the information given about the pendency of the criminal cases before the court against the candidate is to be disclosed. But in this case, as on the date of submission of nomination papers the respondent No.1 was not aware of the pending of the above said case against him, but he came to know about the case registered against him only after submission of additional charge sheet by the IO in the year 2021. Therefore, even though he has not disclosed the said aspect and even the provision of part-B at 5(b) column is not printed in his nomination of declaration is not contrary to the provisions of Municipality Act. 25. As per as not disclosing of the property of the father of the respondent No.1 by name Gaibusab S/o Pirusab Chikkura is concerned, according to the petitioner property of RS No.416/2 measuring 05A-32Gts of Kerur, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 RS No.337/4 measuring 02A-11Gts of Kerur, RS No.64/4 measuring 02A-22Gts of Neranur, the Mahindra Tractor bearing Reg No.KA.36/TB-8679 and trailer Reg No.KA- 29/TB-1669 link Reg No.KA.36/TB-8679 is concerned. The RTC of RS No.416/2 is marked at Ex.P.8 measuring total extent 05A-32Gts jointly entered in the names of Gaibusab S/o Pirusab Chikkur and Mansursab S/o Pirusab Chikkur. Similarly, the property of RS No.337/4 measuring 03A-11Gts, RS No.64/4 measuring 02A-2Gts is also jointly entered in the names of Gaibusab S/o Pirusab Chikkur and Mansursab S/o Pirusab Chikkur. Ex.P.11 discloses that, the house property TMC No.273, TMC No.274 are also jointly entered in the names of Gaibusab S/o Pirusab Chikkur and Mansursab S/o Pirusab Chikkur. There is no exclusive title of these properties standing in the name of the father of the respondent No.1. The above said movable properties are standing in the name of Gaibusab S/o Pirusab Chikkur. Ex.P.12 discloses the Chief Officer of Pattana Panchayth issued certificate that the respondent No.1 possessed the toilet in respect of TMC No.273. Ex.P.13 discloses the respondent No.1 is residing in the house property in TMC No.440A/44 in Ward No.1 of Kerur no due certificate issued by the Chief Officer Pattana Panchayath with regarding balance of house tax, water tax etc. on perusal of the contents of Ex.P.6 the affidavit submitted by the respondent No.1 he has not disclosed the properties entered in the name of father of the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 respondent No.1 in column No.8(A) as he has shown the name of his father as dependent in column No.4 of the said affidavit. R.W.1 has admitted in the cross examination that the property shown in Ex.P.12 is standing in the name of his father. He has also admitted that, the house property in TMC No.274 is belongs to his father. Even though he has deposed that the properties shown in Ex.P.3 is jointly belongs to his father and uncle, but in the said affidavit there is a specific direction to mention the joint properties also. Admittedly the properties entered in the name of the father and his uncle in respect of the landed properties, house properties and movable properties are not shown in the affidavit. Therefore, I answer to issue No.1 is in the Partly Affirmative, issue No.2 is in the Negative.” 17. The Election Tribunal, after considering the material on record, held that, the properties entered in the name of the father and his uncle regarding landed properties, house properties and movable properties, are not shown in the affidavit. Admittedly, the petitioner did not raise any objections, after displaying the affidavit, and nomination of the candidates. Subsequently after declaration of result, the petitioner filed the election petition - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 alleging that, respondent No.1 has failed to disclose assets and liabilities and also about involvement in the criminal cases and further recorded a finding that the petitioner has not complied with the requirements as contemplated under the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘RP Act’ for short). The election petition was dismissed solely on the technical ground that there is no compliance under Section 81(3) of the RP Act. The Election Tribunal was justified in dismissing the election petition on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory requirements under Section 81(3) of the RP Act. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative. Reg. Point No.2: 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Appeal is dismissed; ii. The Impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Election Tribunal, is hereby confirmed. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11064 MFA No. 101197 of 2024 iii. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40