Respondent In Election Petition Cannot Be Made Petitioner Over Claims Of Collusion Between Election Petitioner & Successful Candidate: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that a respondent in an election petition cannot seek for transposition as a petitioner claiming that there is a collusion between the Election petitioner and the successful candidate or any other ground. A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Kudleepa Chittaragi who had questioned the order of the trial court rejecting his application made under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. It said “The petitioner in the present case being a respondent and not having independently challenged the election of respondent No.2 could not have filed an application for transposition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.” Mahantesh HIremath had filed an election petition against respondents No.2 to 5 and the petitioner under Section 21 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. He had sought a declaration that election of respondent No.2 to Amingad Pattan from Panchayat from Ward No.16, is void and illegal and for declaration that he is the successful candidate. The petitioner contended that there being an apparent collusion between the election petitioner and the successful candidate, the petitioner has a vested right to ensure that the challenge to the election of the successful candidate reaches its logical conclusion. Thus the petitioner, who is one other candidate, wanted to transpose himself as an election petitioner to prosecute the matter. The counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner not having challenged the election of respondent No.2, he cannot now seek to challenge the same by seeking for transposition in the pending election petition. Finding: The bench noted that Sections 21 and 23 of the Act would indicate that any petition challenging an election would have to be filed by a candidate or a voter within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. Following which it said “In the present case, such a petition had been filed on 13.01.2022 by respondent No.1 in EP No.1/2022 and it is only on 22.02.2024 that the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.15 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to transpose him as a petitioner i.e., from the time of filing of the election petition on 13.01.2022 till 22.02.2024, the petitioner had no grievance as regards the election of respondent No.2.” It added “A challenge to an election is a serious matter and any such challenge can be made only in terms of the applicable statute and not otherwise. Section 21 of the Act clearly mandating that a challenge has to be made within 15 days, any person aggrieved by the election is required to file the said election petition within 15 days of the declaration of election and not otherwise. There is no vested right created in the respondent to the election petition as regards the relief, which has been sought for in election petition.” Stating that if at all the petitioner was aggrieved by the election of the successful candidate, he could have always filed a separate election petition. The court held “That not having been done after a period of 2 years after the election, the question of respondent in an election petition seeking for transposition as a petitioner to continue the petition and therefore challenge the election of the successful candidate would not arise there being no vested right in favour of such a respondent, the same being barred under Section 21 of the Act.” Further it said “A respondent in an election petition cannot seek for transposition as a petitioner in the election petition on the ground of collusion between the election petitioner and the successful candidate or any other ground. If at all, a candidate in an election is aggrieved, such candidate would be required to file necessary election petition in terms of the applicable law within the applicable time frame fixed thereto.” Appearance: Advocate Girish A Yadawad for Petitioner. Advocates K.L Patil And S.S Beturmath FOR R2. Advocate V.S Kalasurmath for, HCGP FOR R3-R5 Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 12 Case Title: Kudleepa AND Mahantesh & Others Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.100030 OF 2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Respondent In Election Petition Cannot Be Made Petitioner Over Claims Of Collusion Between Election Petitioner & Successful Candidate: Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

Respondent In Election Petition Cannot Be Made Petitioner Over Claims Of Collusion Between Election Petitioner & Successful Candidate: Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers