Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 483 (KAR)

PRIYA KRISHNA v. THE RETURNING OFFICER

RP/224/2022 · 2026-03-26

Jayant Banerji, Rajesh Rai K

Review Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17202-DB RP No. 224 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REVIEW PETITION NO. 224 OF 2022 BETWEEN: PRIYA KRISHNA S/O SRI M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2937/38E 'GOVARDHANA PRIYA' SERVICE ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY K.V., ADVOCATE AND SRI. RAJENDRA B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE GOVINDARAJA NAGAR ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY-166 PALIKE SOUDHA, 14TH CROSS CHANDRA LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 072 (NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY SECRETARY; BDA) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17202-DB RP No. 224 of 2022 C/O. THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER KARNATAKA AT NIRVACHANA NILAYA SESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER KARNATAKA AT NIRVACHANA NILAYA SESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA AT NIRVACHAN SADAN ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARASHCHANDRA RAMESH DODAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908 READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2021 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO.3829/2019 (GM-RES) AND TO ALLOW THE SAID WRIT APPEAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17202-DB RP No. 224 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) When the matter was called up in the first round, the Junior counsel of the learned counsel for the review petitioner was present in Court, who sought an adjournment for the day, stating that his senior is busy in another Court. However, we declined to adjourn the matter for a day inasmuch as this review petition is pending since the year 2022 against the judgment dated 05.01.2021 passed in the Writ Appeal No.3829/2019, which could well be attended and the submissions could well be made by learned counsel for the review petitioner after attending the other Court. 2. However, when the matter was called out again, no one appears for the review petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents is present. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17202-DB RP No. 224 of 2022 4. We have perused the record. The learned Single Judge had held that the writ petition was filed seeking a direction to respondent No.1 therein i.e., the Returning Officer of the Govindaraja Nagar Assembly Constituency- 116 to count the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail ('VVPAT') in respect of 271 polling stations of that constituency and further for quashing the order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Returning Officer on the application made by the petitioner rejecting the plea for counting the VVPAT slips. While dismissing the writ petition, it was observed that the impugned order could not be said to be perverse and did not suffer from the vice of non application of mind. Interference in the impugned order would amount to an exercise in futility. The writ petition was dismissed. 5. In the writ appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was considered and it was held that the petition was filed by the unsuccessful candidate who had chosen not to file an election petition which would, even - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17202-DB RP No. 224 of 2022 otherwise, be barred by limitation. It was held that it was wholly unnecessary to answer the contention of the counsel for the appellant insofar as correctness or otherwise of the impugned order is concerned. The appellant had accepted the outcome of the poll and had not challenged his defeat before the appropriate forum. The findings of the learned Single Judge were duly considered and upheld. 6. We find no error apparent on the face of the record that would merit review of the impugned judgment. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7