- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8506 OF 2023 (MPA) BETWEEN: N.H. BORALINGAIAH S/O LATE SRI. HONNAGIRIAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT NO.103, KALANAGARA T.K.ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR SHASTRY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. GURURAJ R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . P. PRASHANTHA S/O SRI. PARAMASHIVA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.3169/A, 60 FEET ROAD INDIRANAGAR 1ST MAIN HAL 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 038 2 . THE ELECTION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160 3 . THE RETURNING OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, B.M.ROAD RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159 4 . THE ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 160 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANDA B.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1 [VIDEO CONFERENCE]; SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. CHANDINI S. HCGP FOR R3 & R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 27 OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2023 PASSED IN ELC.NO.01/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellant-petitioner in Election Case No.1/2021 has preferred this appeal under Section 27 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (in short 'KMC Act') being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 29.9.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, sitting as the Election Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the said impugned order, dismissed the election Petition filed by the appellant questioning the election of the first respondent to the post of Councilors of Ward No.26 of the Channapatna City Municipal Council. The appellant, having unsuccessfully contested the said election, has specifically alleged that, the nomination of the first respondent was invalid and that his election ought to have been declared void under the provisions of the KMC Act, 1964. 2. The factual matrix surrounding this dispute is that, general elections to the Channapatna City Municipal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 Council was scheduled in accordance with the calendar of events published by the State Election Commission. The calendar of events dated 29.3.2021 was issued under the authority granted to the Election Commission by Article 243(ZA) of the Constitution of India and by the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The last date for filing nominations was, 15.04.2021, scrutiny was to take place on 16.4.2021, the last date for withdrawal of nominations was 19.4.2021 and polling was scheduled on 29.4.2021. Further, the counting of votes and declaration of results was to be conducted on 30.4.2021. In this election, the appellant and first respondent were among the candidates who filed nominations to contest from Ward No.26, a Ward reserved for scheduled caste candidates. 3. It is the specific allegation of the appellant that, the first respondent was not a validly qualified candidate for contesting the said election as his name was not found in the electoral roll of the relevant Municipal area on the date the election process commenced. It was contended - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 by him that, the first respondent, a resident of Bengaluru had on, 8.4.2021 applied for inclusion of his name in the voters list of Ward No.4 of the Channapatna City Municipal Council, and that the said name was allegedly inserted into the voters list by way of a correction list published on 15.4.2021. The appellant contends that, such an inclusion was in breach of the statutory mandate under the KMC, 1964 particularly under Section 14 of the Act, which restricts any amendment inclusion or deletion in the electoral rolls once the election process begins. 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, including oral testimony and documentary records came to the conclusion that, the inclusion of the first respondent's name in the electoral roll was not in violation of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The Tribunal, further held that, the first respondent had established sufficient material to show his residence and connection to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 Channapatna town and therefore, eligible to contest from Ward No.26. 5. I have heard the arguments of both the side. The learned Sr.Counsel Sri. Vighneshwar S. Shastry would submit that, when the election process began, the name of respondent no.1 was not included in the voters list of Channapatna and subsequent to that, his name came to be inserted so as to make him to contest the election for the post of counselor from Ward No.26. He submits that, in view of the circulars issued by the Government of Karnataka and the mandatory provisions of KMC Act, the very inclusion of name of respondent no.1 after beginning of the election process i.e. publication of calendar of events is against the provisions of the KMC Act and the circular issued by the Government of Karnataka to that effect. He would further submit that, the respondent no.1 had suppressed the material facts about his residence and he was residing in Bengaluru. His name was appearing in the voters list at Bengaluru and he was to get delete his - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 name from voter list, Bengaluru and apply for inclusion of his name in the voters list of Channapatna. He would submit that, in collusion with the officials of Election office, he had got included his name. Therefore, his election to the post of counselor is vitiated and is against the provisions of the election laws. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondetno.1 submits that, only on getting deletion of name of respondent no.1 from the voters list at Bengaluru well in time, respondent no.1 moved an application to include his name in the voters list at Channapatna. There was sufficient time granted for objections as mandated under the KMC Act. After 7 days of filing the application, his name came to be included and thereby he has fulfilled all the requirements to contest the election for the post of counselor from Ward NO.26. He justifies the dismissal of the election petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 7. The counsel for the municipality supports the reasons assigned by the Tribunal and submits that, there is no illegality or perversity in dismissing the election petition. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission, relied upon the following judgments: (i) Shivappa Chanamallappa Jogendra Vs. Basavannappa Gadlappa Bankar and Others - 1965 (2) Mys.L.J. 289 (ii) State of Karnataka and Others Vs. G. Nagappa and Others - AIR 1975 SC 1708 (iii) Smt. Gowramma Vs. M.P. Moulamma and Others - 2000 (1) Kant.L.J. 268 (iv) Smt. Lakshmidevi and Another Vs. Chief Electoral Officer, Bangalore and Others - ILR 2017 KAR 2103 9. Having given my anxious consideration to the facts of the case and consideration of the arguments of both the side, on perusal of the material placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that, there are no justifiable grounds made out by the appellant so as to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 interfere into the impugned judgment for the following reasons: Before discussing the factual aspects, let me analyze the provisions of the KMC Act with regard to the election of councilors. Section 13 of the KMC Act, 1964 provides for the constitution of municipal councils and the election of councilors. It mandates that, the State Government shall divide the municipal area into wards and councilors shall be elected to represent each such ward. Thus, the legislative purpose of Section 13 is to ensure democratic representation at the local level. However, this right is circumscribed by the provisions which follow notably sections 14 and 15 of the Act which prescribe the eligibility of electors and candidates. 10. Section 14 of the Act provides for the preparation of electoral rolls for each ward and vests the responsibility for such preparation in the State Election commission. This section is significant as, it establishes that, each ward shall have a distinct electoral roll and that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 each roll shall be based on the relevant part of the electoral roll for the legislative assembly constituency within which the Ward is situated. The second provision to sub-section (1) of Section 14 introduces an embargo on any amendment, transposition, inclusion or deletion of entries in the electoral roll after the last date for filing nominations and before the completion of the election. This proviso is intended to bring finality and certainty to the list of electors who can participate in the election either by voting or contesting. 11. The contention of the appellant that, no inclusions in the voters list can be made after the issuance of the calendar of events is premised on an interpretation that treats the calendar date as the starting point of the electoral process. However, a reading of Section 14 in its entirety reveals that, the bar on changes applies only after the last date for filing the nominations and not prior to that. The implication is that, applications for inclusions of names submitted before the cut off dates are valid and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 can be acted upon by the electoral authorities. In the present case, as stated supra, the first respondent submitted form no.6 on 8.4.2021, which was well before the nomination deadline of 15.4.2021. Hence, the inclusion of his name in the voters list was published on 15.4.2021 which does not suffer from any illegality as alleged by the appellant now. 12. Section 15 of the Act lays down the qualifications for candidates. It states that, a person shall be qualified to be chosen as a counselor if his name appears in the electoral roll of any ward within the municipal area. It is not a requirement that, the candidate must be a resident or a voter of the same ward from which he is contesting. The emphasis is, on being an elector within the municipality. The first respondent's name having been included in the electoral roll of Ward no.4 of Channapatna Municipality as on the date of nomination, he satisfied the condition under Section 15 of the KMVC Act. The parties to the election petition lead - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 sufficient evidence and even the petitioner got marked 26 documents in support fo his case in addition to he entering witness as PW.1 . Even respondent no.1 also entered the witness box and has produced three documents at Ex.R1 to R3 so also three other witnesses were examined as CWs 1 to 3 being the officials of the returning officer and through them, Ex.C1 to C5 were marked. The learned Tribunal took into account of all these aspects and concluded that the first respondent had submitted valid proof of residence in Channapatna, including a birth certificate issued by Channapatna Municipal Council indicating his birth in the said town and a lease agreement dated 8.4.2021 showing that he had been residing in the property located in Channapatna for three years preceding the election and other official records linking him to that Municipal area. 13. These documents produced by respondent no.1 and the officials of returning officer were not adequately rebutted by the appellant. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 14. The submission that the lease deed was created merely for the purpose of election was not established with any convincing evidence. Mere suspicion is not a ground to discredit the documentary evidence that is otherwise in order. Furthermore, the sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of a family member in respect of Channapatna property further corroborates his claim of residing and having links to that locality. Thus, the Tribunal rightly concluded that, the respondent was a permanent residence of Channapatna and not an outsider as alleged. 15. It is also necessary to note that the electoral process is a time bound constitutional mandate and Courts should be circumspect in interfering with the electoral outcomes unless there is a clear and substantial breach of legal provisions. The process of nomination and scrutiny is entrusted to the returning officer who acts as a quasi- judicial authority under the Statute. In this case, the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 Returning Officer accepted the nomination of the first respondent upon verifying the electoral roll and relevant documents. There is no evidence that, the returning officer acted arbitrarily or overlooked any legal requirement. The presumption of regularity attaches to such administrative acts and the burden to rebut it lies on the person alleging irregularity. 16. In this case, the appellant has made several allegations regarding the timing of the correction list, the absence of a formal voter slip, and inconsistency in the serial no. of the electoral roll. These are technicalities which do not undermine the core fact that, the first respondent's name did appear in the electoral roll of the municipal area on the day of nomination. The correctness or otherwise of internal electoral administrative procedures cannot be the basis for nullifying the mandate of the electorate unless they result in a fundamental breach of rights or statutory non-compliance. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 17. The appellant also sought a declaration that, he be declared as the elected councilor in place of first respondent. Such relief is extraordinary in nature and is granted only in circumstances where the election of the returned candidate is declared void and that the petitioner is able to demonstrate that for the invalid nomination, he would have secured the highest number of valid votes. In the present case, although the first respondent secured 776 votes and the appellant secured 687 votes, there is no finding that the votes secured by the first respondent were invalidated. Hence, such substitution cannot be granted merely because the appellant secured the second highest number of votes. 18. Moreover, Section 21 of the KMC Act, 1964, which provides the right to file an election petition and also prescribes the grounds and the manner in which such challenges are to be entertained. The petitioner must clearly plead material facts and must be verified in accordance with the requirements of the code of civil - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 procedure. The Tribunal found that, the petition filed by the appellant, while procedurally maintainable, did not make out a substantive ground under the Act for setting aside the election. The Tribunal also noted that, all the other contesting candidates were not impleaded as parties to the petition, which is a procedural defect, though not fatal in this case. 19. The interpretation placed by the Tribunal on Section 14 and 15 of the Act is consistent with the scheme of legislation. The provisions are to be read harmoniously with the objective of ensuring the electoral rolls reflects the correct state of electors as on the date of nominations and not arbitrarily frozen at the instance of the calendar of events. The Act contemplates dynamic rolls until the nomination stage and only thereafter, mandates a freeze. This is a logical construction meant to balance the rights of genuine residence who may seek inclusion and the need for certainty once the contest has crystallized. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29357 MFA No. 8506 of 2023 20. This Court, is therefore of the considered view that, the appeal lacks merit. The judgment and order of the learned Tribunal is to be confirmed. There is no perversity or illegality calling for appellate interference. The election of first respondent as a councilor of Ward No.26 of Channapatna City Municipal Council is not shown to be vitiated by any legal infirmity or factual inaccuracy. Therefore, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly the following: ORDER (i) The appeal stands dismissed. (ii) The judgment and order of Election Tribunal dated 29.9.2023 in Election Petition No.1/2021 by the Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna is affirmed with no order as to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42