IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.2634 OF 2015 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN:
SMT. KHAMAR NIZAMI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI USMAN KHAN USMANI, RESIDING AT NO.15, C/1, MUDUVAGALAYAYA ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN-562 160, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI SHAIKH ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY IT’S UNDER SECRETARY, NO.8, KSCMF BUILDING (ANNEX), 1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.
2. TAHSILDAR CHANNAPATNA TALUK, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, CHANNAPATNA-562 160, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. CHANNAPATNA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CHANNAPATNA-562 160, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, B. M. ROAD, RAMANAGARA.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. HARISCHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. N. PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI R. ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-2 AND R-4;
SRI A. V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.34978 OF 2015 DATED 19.08.2015.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.34978 of 2015 dated 19-8-2015 the petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant contested for the election of Municipal Council, Channapatna. She won the election. The results were declared on 11-3-2013. In terms of Section 16 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, she was expected to file her election expenses within 30 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. She did not do so. She filed the same only on 3-3-2014. Therefore, the Election Commissioner issued her a notice to reply. By the time, notices were replied, she had filed the list of expenses. Even then, the Election Commission disqualified her. Questioning the same, the instant petition was filed. The learned Single Judge rejected the petition. Hence, this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on Section 16-C (b) to contend that there was reason for the delay in filing the election expenses. He places reliance on her affidavit dated 1-3-2014 as well as the letter written by her dated 3-3-2014 where she has stated that she was suffering from ill-health as well as her mother was suffering him ill-health.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The law is clear. It is a mandatory provision. The petitioner is bound to submit her list of election expenses before the State Election Commission within 30 days from the date of declaration of election. Admittedly, she has failed to do so. She has furnished it almost one year after the results were declared. So far as provisions of Section 16-C (b) is concerned, there has to be a good reason or justification for failure to do so.
5. We have considered the affidavit filed in support of such a contention. The affidavit does not narrate either her ill-health or ill-health of her mother. The letter written by her to the Election Commission is a bald statement made by her. She has stated that she suffers from ill-health and also her mother is unwell. Such a letter cannot be accepted. It is not supported by any material. Therefore, the letter would appear to be, to get over the delay in complying with the mandatory provision. Secondly, the affidavit does not narrate the delay if any. We are of the view that the Election Commission was justified in passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Rsk/-