ADVERTISEMENT
Karnataka High Court
Mr. D. N. Jeevaraja vs Mr. T. D. Rajegowda on 6 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ELECTION PETITION NO. 20 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. D.N. JEEVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
SON OF G.T. NARAYANA GOWDA,
RESIDING AT: NO.23,
DWARAMAKKI,
BADAGABAYLU VILLAGE,
B.H. KAIMARA POST,
NARASAIMHARAJAPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 134.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
MS.Dr.VANDANA P.L., SRI RISHI N. UMESH AND MS. YUKTHA N.,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally 1. MR. T.D. RAJEGOWDA
signed by
HEMALATHA J SON OF DEVEGOWDA,
Location: AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
HIGH COURT RESIDING AT: BASAPURA-KADAVANTE POST,
OF
KARNATAKA CHIKKAMAGALURU (T),
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 136.
2. MR. SUDHAKAR. S. SHETTY
SON OF T.K. SANJEEVA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TUMAKHANE KODURU POST,
SHANUVALLI KOPPA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU -577 126.
3. MR. RAJAN GOWDA H.S.
SON OF SRINIVAS GOWDA,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: HORABAILU,
DHAREKOPPA POST,
BELANDUR VILLAGE,
SRINGERI TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 139.
4. MR. K.M. GOPALA
SON OF MANJAIAH,
RESIDING AT: KARUVANE,
HONNAVALLI POST,
SRINGERI TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 139.
5. MR. M.K. DAYANDA MAVINKERE
SON OF A.T. KRISHNAIAH GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 726,
NERALEKOPPA MAVINKERE,
SHETTYKOPPA POST,
NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 134.
6. MR. UMESH. B.A. @ COMRADE UMESH B.A.
SON OF AJAGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BOGASE (V),
BOGASE POST, KHANDYA HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 130.
7. MS. K.R. KUSUMA
DAUGHTER OF K.R. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: SUBASH ROAD,
KOPPA TOWN, KOPPA POST,
KOPPA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 126.
8. MR. ABRAHAM
SON OF KUKRA NUHA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: CHIKKANAGUNDI,
HARANDURU VILLAGE, KOPPA POST,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 126.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
9. MRS. G. BHARATHI
WIFE OF SUBDAR RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: NO. 86,
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
NEAR FAMILY FOOD CENTRE,
BTS LAYOUT AREKERE,
BANGALORE SOUTH-560 076.
10. MR. NARAYANA
SON OF LATE ANGU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: DHAREKOPPA, KULURU,
KOPPA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 126.
11. MR. ELIYAZ AHAMMAD
SON OF RIYAZ AHAMMED S. Y.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: GORIGANDI,
DEVADANA VILLAGE,
SANGAMESHWARAPETE (P),
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 136.
12. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110001.
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER.
DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 04.09.2023
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI.
ASHWIN C. SRI PARITOSH S.M., SRI ROHAN HOSMATH, SRI
ABHISHEK GOWDA A.H, MS.KEERTHI REDDY AND SRI ABHISHEK
KUMAR, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI. G.R.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND SRI G. SHIVKUMAR, ADVOCATES
FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;
SRI. G. DEVARAJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.11;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.3, 5, 7, 8;
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2023, NOTICE/S TO RESPONDENT NOS.6
AND 10 IS/ARE SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 12.02.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT NO.9 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS ELECTION PETITION IS PRESENTED UNDER SECTION 81
OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951, BY SRI D.N.
JEEVARAJA - PETITIONER ALONG WITH HIS COUNSELS DR.
VANDANA P.L. AND SRI RISHI N. UMESH (ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER) BEFORE THE I/C REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) ON
27.06.2023 THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE CHALLENGING THE
ELECTION OF RESPONDENT NO.1 - MR. T.D. RAJEGOWDA AS
RETURNING CANDIDATE FROM 123-SRINGERI ASSEMBLY
CONSTITUENCY, 2023 TO THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
2023, AND THE PETITIONER PRAYS TO A) DECLARE THAT THE
DECLARATION OF THE ELECTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS
RETURNING CANDIDATE FROM 123, SRINGERI ASSEMBLY
CONSTITUENCY, AS VOID AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 AND THE HANDBOOK
FOR RETURNING OFFICER ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION
OF INDIA; FOR THE REASONS OF MALPRACTICES, ELECTION
OFFENCES, UNETHICAL ACTS AND INDULGENCES AND SUCH OTHER
REASONS AS MAY BE NOTED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AND B).
ALTERNATIVELY ORDER FOR RECOUNTING OF THE VOTES POLLED IN
123 SRINGERI ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND DECLARE THE RESULTS AFRESH; OR ORDER FOR RE-
ELECTION OF 123 SRINGERI ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY THROUGH
BALLOT PAPERS FORTHWITH AND DECLARE THE RESULTS; C)
AWARD COSTS OF THIS PETITION; AND D). GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO
GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS ELECTION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 07.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CAV ORDER
This Election Petition is filed under Section 81 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (henceforth referred to
as "Act, 1951" in short) for a declaration that the election of
the respondent No.1 as returned candidate from Constituency
No.123 - Sringeri Assembly Constituency as void in view of the
violation of the provisions of the Act, 1951 and the Handbook
for Returning Officer issued by the Election Commission of India
and also in view of election malpractices, election offences,
unethical acts and indulgences. The petitioner has sought for an
alternative relief to order re-count of the votes polled in
Sringeri Assembly Constituency - 123 in accordance with law
and declare the results afresh or order for re-election for
Sringeri Assembly Constituency - 123 through ballot papers
and declare the results.
2(i). The petitioner contends that general elections to
the 16th Legislative Assembly of Karnataka was announced by
the Election Commission of India in exercise of the powers
under Article 324 read with Article 172(1) of the Constitution of
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
India and Section 15 of the Act, 1951 vide notification dated
29.03.2023. The calendar of events notified were as follows:
Events Karnataka
(All 224 Assembly
Constituencies)
Date of Issue of Gazette Notification 13.04.2023
Last Date of making nominations 20.04.2023
Date for Scrutiny of Nominations 21.04.2023
Last date for the withdrawal of 24.04.2023
candidatures
Date of Poll 10.05.2023
Date of Counting 13.05.2023
Date before which election shall be 15.05.2023
completed
(ii). The Election Commission appointed a District
Election Officer and a Returning Officer for the Sringeri
Assembly Constituency - 123 and elections were conducted
under the direct supervision of the Returning Officer and the
observers of the Election Commission.
(iii). The petitioner contends that 12 nominations were
received which were found valid for the elections. The
petitioner too had filed his nomination to contest in the said
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
election as a candidate representing Bharatiya Janata Party
('BJP' for short) while respondent Nos.1 to 11 were the other
contesting candidates. The petitioner contends that the
Presiding Officer is bound to strictly comply several formalities
such as maintaining records, collect information regarding
polling every two hours during the hours of poll in his diary and
at the close of the poll, prepare an account of votes recorded in
Form No.17C and enclose it in a separate cover and seal along
with the Electronic Voting Machine ('EVM' for short) until they
are handed over to the Returning Officer. He contends that
these are the requirements as stipulated under the Rules,
guidelines and Handbook issued by the Election Commission of
India.
(iv). He contends that on the date of counting i.e.
13.05.2023, he noticed several non-compliances in the process
of counting the votes of absentee voters in the category(ies) of
Senior Citizens and Persons with Disabilities, who had sent in
their postal ballots. He contends that the contest in the election
was between him and the respondent No.1, who was sponsored
by the Indian National Congress. The number of votes polled to
the petitioner and the respondent No.1 were as follows:
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Candidate Votes
ETPBS Postal EVM Total
Petitioner 03 689 58278 58970
(Mr. D N Jeevaraja)
Respondent No.1 07 562 58602 59171
(Mr. T.D. Rajegowda)
(v). He claims that the victory margin between him and
respondent No.1 was only 201 while the total number of postal
ballots was 1811 and the number of postal ballot votes rejected
was 279. He, therefore, contends that as per the Handbook
issued by the Election Commission of India, the Returning
Officer was bound to re-verify the postal ballots without
expecting any candidate to file an application. He contends that
even though his agent raised objections regarding the counting
of the postal ballots at the time of counting of votes and filed
an application for re-counting, the Retuning Officer failed to re-
verify the votes and issued an endorsement refusing to re-
count the postal ballots. The Returning Officer proceeded to
declare the results in Form 20, Form 21C and Form 21E of
Sringeri Assembly Constituency - 123. The petitioner claims
that being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Returning Officer in counting the ballots, other corrupt practices
and offensive acts committed by the respondent No.1 and
persons on his behalf which resulted in the unlawful victory of
the respondent No.1, he has filed this petition.
(vi). The petitioner contends that the endorsement dated
13.05.2023 issued by the Returning Officer blatantly violates
Rule 15 of the Handbook for the Returning Officers issued by
the Election Commission of India which reads as follows:
"15. In case the victory margin is less than
total number of postal ballots received then there
should be a mandatory re-verification of all postal
ballots. In the presence of Observer and the RO all the
postal ballots rejected as invalid as well as the postal
votes counted in favour of each and every candidate
shall once again be verified and tallied. The Observer and
the RO shall record the findings of re-verification and
satisfy themselves before finalizing the result. The entire
proceeding should be video-graphed without
compromising the secrecy of ballot and the video-
cassette/CD should be sealed in a separate envelope for
future reference."
(vii). He, therefore, contends that when the victory
margin is less than the number of votes rejected, the Returning
Officer is bound to re-verify all the postal ballots and since the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
same is not done, it violates the concept of free and fair
elections.
(viii). He contends that in a similar case in another
Constituency in the same election, around 160 postal ballots
were initially rejected and were later counted as valid before
the results were declared and therefore, re-verifying the postal
ballots in the instant case was absolutely necessary. He
contends that if this was allowed by the Returning Officer, it
would have brought material changes in the election results.
Thus, he contends that perusal of the endorsement dated
13.05.2023 shows that the Returning Officer had failed to
provide reasons for rejection of 279 postal ballots. Thus, he
contends that the rejection of these postal ballots was without
any basis. He also contends that the respondent No.1 had
committed various malpractices such as, (a) Use of black
money for rallies advertisements and votes: The petitioner
alleges that a sum of Rs.20,00,00,000/- was spent by the
respondent No.1 to bribe the voters. For this, the respondent
No.1 and his family members had reduced the market value of
huge properties and estates and have purchased the same
using illegally stacked black money. He claims that the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
possibility of respondent No.1 possessing huge black money is
clear and he has used it to bribe the voters. (b) The respondent
No.1 had incurred more expenditure in election than what is
legally allowed and thereby, has violated the norms. He claimed
that there are both speaking and circumstantial evidence in
that regard. (c) The Respondent No.1 and his men engaged in
false propaganda against the petitioner to give a negative
impression in the minds of voters by foisting false and
fabricated stories and materials on the Social media and via
hate handbills etc. that resulted in character assassination and
demeaning of the petitioner's personality. (d) Both the
respondent No.1 and his supporters and party men made
several promises to voters with no intention or possibility of
fulfilling them and thereby, lured the voters unethically and
unlawfully. (e) The respondent No.1 resorted to a spree of paid
news, paid campaign and paid opinion to influence the minds of
the voters. It was also alleged that the respondent No.1 bribed
several Sections of media persons. The petitioner claimed that
these henchmen of the respondent No.1 were engaged in
promoting him falsely and directly / indirectly demeaning the
petitioner and thereby, secured more than 8000 to 9000
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
undeserved votes which otherwise would have been polled in
his favour. (f) The respondent No.1 resorted to truce making
with the candidates of other parties who overtly and covertly
supported to divide the votes of the petitioner and to reduce
the margins. (g) The returned candidate i.e. respondent No.1
directly through his men ensured that more than 2000 to 3000
of duplicate voters were registered in multiple Constituencies
and dummy voters were enabled to cast their votes in his
favour. The petitioner, therefore, alleged that the respondent
No.1 had secured more votes than him unlawfully. (h) Besides
the above, the respondent No.1 had indulged in several acts
that rendered his victory bad. The petitioner, therefore, prayed
that the Election Petition be allowed and election of the
respondent No.1 as returned candidate from Sringeri Assembly
Constituency - 123 be held as null and void and in the
alternative, for a re-count of the votes polled in Sringeri
Assembly Constituency - 123 in accordance with law and
declare the results afresh or order for re-election in respect of
the said Constituency.
3(i). The respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections
inter alia contending that the grievance of the petitioner is that
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
the Returning Officer refused to recount the votes and
therefore, this violated Clause 15 of the Handbook for
Returning Officer. He contends that this contention is bad in the
eye of law. He contends that the petitioner did not plead the
specific clause of Section 100 of the Act which is violated and
which possibly could result in the election being declared as
void. He also contended that the petitioner has relied on the
wrong Handbook issued for the Returning Officers. He has
claimed that the petitioner has relied on Clause 15 of the
Handbook for Returning Officer issued in the year 2014 while
the Election Commission of India had issued a new Handbook
for Returning Officer before the 2023 election. Hence, the
ground urged by the petitioner is on an untenable premise and
is, therefore, liable to be rejected. He also contends that the
directions issued in the Handbook for Returning Officer 2023
are only directory in nature and not mandatory. In this regard,
he has referred to paragraph 1.2.1 of the Handbook for
Returning Officer 2023 which reads as follows:
"1.2.1. This Handbook for Returning Officer is
designed to give information and guidance needed for
optimal functioning of a Returning Officer. However, this
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
is not an exhaustive compendium in all aspects or as a
substitute reference for the various provisions of election
law for the conduct of elections. Returning Officer should
therefore, wherever necessary, refer to those legal
provisions, contained in the latest edition of the Manual of
Election Law, which contains, among other things,
relevant extracts from
(2) the Constitution of India,
(3) the Representation of the People Act, 1950,
(4) the Representation of the People Act, 1951,
(5) the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and the
Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and the relevant
enactments with which Returning Officer should
primarily be concerned. In addition to this, Returning
Officer must also have a copy of the Compendium of
Instructions, Compendium of Instructions on Election
Expenditure Monitoring and the Handbook for
Presiding Officer, The Election Symbols Order, 1968
and the latest list of political parties and election
symbols issued by the Election Commission and refer
to them as often as needed and instructions issued
by ECI from time to time."
(ii). The respondent No.1 contends that the above
would emphasize that the Handbook for Returning Officer 2023
provides information and guidance to the Returning Officer and
is not a substitute to the various provisions of the Act, 1951
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 ("the Rules, 1961" in
short). He contends that this Handbook is only a guide and
what prevails is the Act, 1951 as well as the Rules, 1961.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Rules
mentioned in the Handbook for Returning Officer are
mandatory is liable to be rejected.
(iii). The respondent No.1 further contends that the
Handbook for Returning Officer is a guide to ensure the process
of re-counting of postal ballots. However, the Act, 1951 and the
Rules, 1961 clearly provide the method for issuing, counting
and re-counting of postal ballots and other ballots. He contends
that the procedure for issuing postal ballots is provided in Rule
23(1) of the Rules, 1961 counting of votes received by post is
provided under Rule 54A and re-counting of votes is provided in
Rule 63 of the Rules, 1961. The Returning Officer in the facts
of the present case had received all the postal ballots and
opened the same for counting in front of the authorized agents
of both the petitioner and the respondent No.1 who have
affixed their respective signature on the appropriate forms
which chronicled the number of valid and rejected votes. It is
only after the authorized agents of the petitioner and the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
respondent No.1 signified that they did not have any objection
to the counting procedure for determining the valid and invalid
postal votes, the results were announced in Form No.20. He
contends that the written request of the petitioner's agent for
re-count of the postal ballots was rejected in terms of an
endorsement dated 13.05.2023 and the same is neither
baseless nor prejudicial. He contends that the agent of the
petitioner field an application, which reads as follows:
"Subject: Request for Re-counting of Votes
for 123. Sringeri Assembly. 80+ voters and
handicapped(Physicall)
With regard to the above subject, we request you
to re-count the votes for 123 Sringeri Assembly. We are
having doubt with regard to postal ballots.
Hence, request you to kindly re-count the postal
ballots."
(iv). The respondent No.1 contends that from a bare
reading of this application, it is clear that the agent of the
petitioner requested for re-count of the votes of the entire
Assembly Constituency by making a fishing and roving enquiry.
The agent had further indicated that the request was made as
he had some doubts in respect of the postal ballots and
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
contends that this shows that the petitioner proposed to take a
chance for a re-count and see if the results alter.
(v). The respondent No.1 further contends that the
Rules, 1961 prescribes the procedure for re-count of votes
received through post as per Rule 54A. He contends that the
Returning Officer on receipt of the postal ballots has
meticulously followed each and every procedure prescribed in
the Rules, 1961. He claims that the Returning Officer had
obtained signature of the authorized agent of the petitioner in
respect of each of the postal ballots and thereafter, proceeded
to count the number of votes. The election agent of the
petitioner had verified the authenticity of each of the votes
which were counted and also those votes which were rejected
as invalid. It was in that background that the Returning Officer
considered the application filed by the agent of the petitioner as
provided under Rule 63 of the Rules, 1961 and announced the
results in Form No.20. Therefore, he contends that no useful
purpose would be served by withholding the announcement of
results.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(vi). He contends that there are no irregularities or
illegalities in the process of counting of votes that were pointed
in the application filed by the agent of the petitioner for re-
count. He claims that no details were given as to why a re-
count of votes was necessary and not an instance was quoted
as to how there was irregularity or illegality in the counting of
votes. He contends that the contentions urged in the Election
Petition are only with an object of a roving enquiry and do not
inspire confidence and therefore, there is no justification for
ordering re-count and allowing inspection of the ballot papers.
(vii). He also contends that the petitioner's agent having
acknowledged the correctness of the process, cannot turn
around and raise vague objections in the petition. He further
contends that the petitioner has deliberately failed to furnish
the proceedings sheet that was attached to the endorsement
dated 13.05.2023 issued by the Returning Officer and
therefore, this amounts to suppression of material fact.
(viii). The respondent No.1 while referring to the petition
averments, contended that the Handbook relied upon by the
petitioner at Annexure-D is the Handbook for candidates issued
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
during the year 2009. He contends that in para No.7 of the
petition, the petitioner alleged that on the date of counting, he
noticed several non-compliances with respect to consideration
of postal ballots of absentee voters in the category/ies of Senior
citizens and Persons with Physical Disabilities, which he has
denied as false. He contends that there are no pleadings to
show the material non-compliances and that the allegation is
vague which cannot be a substitute for material pleadings in an
Election Petition.
(ix). The respondent No.1 further contends that in para
No.9 of the petition, a general statement is made that the
Returning Officer was under a mandatory obligation to conduct
re-verification of votes without any application and therefore,
the respondent No.1 contends that this statement is made by
quoting a wrong Handbook and therefore, no significance can
be attached to this statement.
(x). As regards paragraph No.10 of the petition, the
respondent No.1 contends that the petitioner had allegedly
raised objection regarding the counting of postal ballots at the
time of counting of votes, which is incorrect. He also claims
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
that the contention of the petitioner that even after filing of an
application for re-counting, the Returning Officer failed to verify
the votes and issued an endorsement refusing recounting is a
misleading and distorted statement. He claims that the
procedure adopted by the Returning Officer is in consonance
with the Act, 1951 and the Rules, 1961. He also denied the
assertions made by the petitioner in paragraph Nos.11, 13, 14,
15 and 17 and specifically contended that Clause No.15 of the
Handbook for Returning Officer relied upon by the petitioner
relates to instructions issued during elections held in 2009 and
not during elections held in 2023. He also contends that
Annexure-D produced along with the Election Petition is a
Handbook for Candidates issued by the Election Commission of
India in 2009 and therefore, contends that the petitioner has
mindlessly quoted wrong Handbook and claimed that the
Returning Officer had followed the procedure prescribed under
the Rules, 1961. Without prejudice to the aforesaid
contentions, the respondent No.1 claims that the Handbook
issued by the Election Commission of India to the Returning
Officers is only a "guide" and cannot overarch the procedure
prescribed in the Act, 1951 or the Rules, 1961. He contends
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
that the application of the agent of the petitioner was
considered and disposed off in accordance with the Rules,
1961. He also contends that the petitioner had claimed that the
Returning Officer while issuing an endorsement dated
13.05.2013 had failed to provide any reason for rejecting 279
postal ballots, which is false as the rejection of every postal
ballot was acknowledged by the agent of the petitioner and no
objection was raised at the time of such rejection.
(xi). The respondent No.1 then referred to the corrupt
practices alleged by the petitioner and contended that no
specific instances or allegations or irregularities or illegalities,
was mentioned by the petitioner so as to attract any provisions
of Section 100 of the Act, 1951. He contends that in the
affidavit filed in support of corrupt practice indulged by the
respondent No.1, he has only referred to paragraph Nos.23(1)
and 23(2) of the petition and therefore, the allegations need
not be considered by the Court as it is not in compliance with
section 83(1) of the Act, 1951 read with Rule 94A of the Rules,
1961.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(xii). The respondent No.1 contends that the petitioner
has made wild and vague allegations of corrupt practice without
giving specific details. He contends that in case of corrupt
practice, the Election Petition must set forth full particulars
including a full statement containing: (i) the names of the
persons who allegedly committed such corrupt practices; (ii)
the date; and (iii) place of the commission of each such
practice. In addition, whenever corrupt practice is alleged, then
the Election Petition should be accompanied by an affidavit in
Form 25 as prescribed under Rule 94A of the Rules, 1961. He
contends that in the facts of the present case, the pleadings do
not conform to the requirement under the Act, 1951 and the
Rules, 1961.
(xiii). As regards ground No.23(1) urged by the petitioner
in the Election Petition, the respondent No.1 contends that the
petitioner has alleged that a sum of Rs.20,00,00,000/- is spent
by respondent No.1 to bribe the voters, which is false and
baseless. He has also denied the allegation that he and his
family members had downscaled the market value of properties
and estates and have used illegally stacked black money. He
has contended that the claim of the petitioner that the list of
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
assets mentioned in the affidavits filed by the respondent No.1
during the previous elections would give a graphic view of the
expenses made by the respondent No.1, is a misleading
statement. He denied specifically all the allegations made by
the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had used black money
to bribe the voters.
(xiv). In so far as ground No.23(2) urged by the
petitioner in the Election Petition is concerned, the respondent
No.1 denied the allegation that he had spent more than what is
legally allowed and contended that the same was false and
baseless. The respondent No.1 denied the allegation made by
the petitioner in the petition that he had indulged in hate
speeches and demeaned the petitioner by circulating
defamatory messages and generated a negative impression in
the minds of the voters against the petitioner and he also
denied that he and his men were engaged in baseless and false
propaganda to create negative impression in the minds of the
voters through Social media and hate handbills and thereby,
assassinated the character of the petitioner. He also denied the
allegation that he and his supporters and party and partymen
made false promises to voters with no intention or possibility of
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
fulfilling them once they were elected and thereby, lured the
voters unethically. He also denied the allegation that he
resorted to paid news, paid campaign and paid opinion making
to influence the minds of the voters through unlawful means
such as bribing various Sections of media, who promoted him
and also directly and indirectly demeaned the petitioner. He
also denied the allegation made by the petitioner that because
of such false propaganda, the respondent No.1 secured more
than 8000 to 9000 votes which otherwise would have been
polled in favour of the petitioner. He also denied the allegation
that he has made truce with candidates of other parties who
overtly and covertly supported to divide the votes of the
petitioner with an intention to reduce the margin. He further
denied the allegation that he and his supporters ensured that
more than 2000 to 3000 duplicate and dummy votes were cast
in favour of the respondent No.1. He, therefore, contended
that unless there is clear pleading and proof regarding violation
of Section 100 of the Act, 1951, there can be no cause of action
to file an Election Petition.
(xv). The respondent No.1 also claimed that he did not
indulge in any corrupt practice and the grounds urged by the
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
petitioner do not constitute valid and sufficient grounds under
Section 100 of the Act, 1951.
4. Based on these contentions, my predecessor
framed the following Issues:
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that the Election
Officer/Returning Officer has failed to comply with
the mandatory requirements in respect of counting
of votes, particularly counting and consideration of
postal ballots?"
Now re-casted as:
Whether the petitioner proves that the Election
officer / Returning Officer has failed to comply with
the mandatory requirements in respect of re-
verification of postal ballots?"
"2. Whether the petitioner proves that the Returning
Officer is not justified in issuing endorsement for
rejecting the application of the petitioner for
recounting of the postal ballots on 13.05.2023?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that the election
results of the subject election was declared wrongly
without considering the objections raised by the
petitioner and his agents?
4. Whether the provisions of RP Act and CE Rules are
mandatory, and provisions of the Returning officers
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
and the handbook is only directory being
subordinate legislation, when there is a conflict?
5. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent
No.1/returned candidate used black money for
election purposes and thereby committed election
malpractice?
6. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent
No.1/returning spent over expenditure in the
election and thereby committed election
malpractice?
7. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent
No.1/returning candidate resorted to hate speeches
and demeaning of the petitioner by committing an
offence of defamation of false basis and stories, and
thereby, prompted the voters wrongly by creating
negative impression on the petitioner and thereby
committed the election malpractice?
8. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent
No.1/returning candidate, his party-men and party
resorted to issue score of false promises with no
intention or possibility of fulfilling them once in
power and thereby, lured the voters unethically and
unlawfully, and thereby committed election
malpractice?
9. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent No.1
/ returning candidate, his party-men and party
resorted to spree of paid news, paid campaign and
paid opinion making and planting process to tilt the
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
minds of the voters, through unlawful modes and
methods by bribing various sections of media due to
which more than 8000 to 9000 undeserved turnout
of votes which otherwise would have been polled in
favour of the petitioner?
10. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent No.1
resorted making of truce with a candidate of other
parties who overtly and covertly supported to divide
votes of the petitioner with an intention to reduce
the margin and thereby committed election
malpractice?
11. Whether the petitioner proves that respondent No.1
resorted directly and through his men to ensure that
more than 2000 to 3000 duplicate voters (registered
in multiple constituencies) and dummy voters casted
their votes in his favour and thereby committed an
election malpractice?
12. Whether the respondent proves that the allegation
of the petitioner regarding malpractice/corrupt
practice are without pleading and material facts?
13. Whether respondent No.1 proves that the evidence
sought to be placed and relied upon by the
petitioner in support of his election petition are not
receivable and they are inadmissible?
14. Whether respondent No.1 proves that the election
petition is wrongly instituted, unsustainable and the
same is liable to be dismissed?
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
15. Whether the petitioner proves that the election of
respondent No.1 and declaration of the result is bad
due to improper counting and non-accounting of
postal ballots?
16. Whether the petitioner proves the election of
respondent No.1/Returning candidate is liable to be
set aside on account of the corrupt
practice/malpractices?
17. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of
declaration that the election of the respondent No.1
as returning candidate from Shringeri Assembly
Constituency 123 as void?
18. Whether the petitioner is entitled for alternative
relief of recounting of votes polled in the Shringeri
Assembly Constituency in accordance with law and
to declare the result afresh?
19. What order?"
5. The petitioner was examined as PW.1. He marked
Exs.P1 to P29. In his cross-examination, a memo dated
27.06.2023 filed by his Advocate was confronted to him by the
learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 and for the sake of
identification, it was marked as Ex.D1 and the signature of
PW.1 was marked as Ex.D1(a). Likewise, Form 25 filed by
PW.1 was confronted and for the sake of identification, it was
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
marked as Ex.D2 and signature of PW.1 was marked as
Ex.D2(a). PW.2 was the Returning Officer to the Sringeri
Assembly Constituency - 123. He identified his signature on
Ex.P1, which was marked as Ex.P1(a) and the relevant portions
of the Handbook for Candidates 2009 as Exs.P4(a) to 4(e) and
the register of proceedings in respect of the Counting Centre as
Ex.P30 and the relevant entries as Ex.P30(a) to 30(g). He also
marked Exs.P31 to P43(a). PW.3 was the polling agent of the
petitioner and he marked Exs.P34 to 51 and marked a pen
drive containing videos, which were transferred from his mobile
as M.O No.1.
6. The respondent No.1 did not lead any evidence.
7. The following were the contentions advanced
by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner:
(i) That issue No.1 dealt with failure on the part of the
Returning Officer to comply the mandatory requirements in
respect of re-verification of the postal ballots. That the victory
margin of the respondent No.1 over the petitioner was only 201
votes while the total postal ballots were 1822 out of which the
rejected votes were 279. That Rule 15 of the Handbook for
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Returning Officer prescribed that when the victory margin is
less than the total number of postal ballots received, then there
should be a mandatory re-verification of all the postal ballots in
the presence of Observer and Returning Officer before finalizing
the result and the proceedings should be video-graphed. He
submits that there is ample pleading in this regard at para
No.13 of the election petition. However, this mandatory
provision in the Handbook is not complied by the Returning
Officer. In this regard, he invited the attention of the Court to
Ex.P30, which is the register maintained by the Returning
Officer to record the proceedings of counting of votes. He
submitted that there is no mention about re-verification of the
postal ballots. Therefore, he contends that there is a violation
of Rule 15 prescribed in the Handbook for Returning Officer,
which has statutory force and is binding on the Returning
Officer. He further contends that it was the duty of the
Returning Officer to re-verify the votes in the presence of the
observer and video-graph the proceedings and thereafter,
announce the final tally of votes. He contends this is only to
ensure that there is no mistake in rejecting the postal ballots or
in accepting the postal ballots as valid and that the valid votes
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
are properly counted by the Returning Officer. In support of
this contention, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S. Selva Mohandas
Pandian v. S.Palani Nadar and others [Election Petition
No.2 of 2021 decided on 05.07.2023], where the victory
margin was less than the number of postal votes declared as
invalid. It was held that it was established by the petitioner
therein that there were gross violation of the mandatory
provisions by the Returning Officer during the counting of
postal ballots and that the Returning Officer had not maintained
the records properly in respect of the total postal ballots
received and the total ballots rejected and reason for rejection
and therefore, warranted a re-verification and recount of the
postal ballots.
(ii). The learned Senior counsel contends that the said
lapse on the part of the Returning Officer has materially
affected the outcome of the election and therefore, election of
respondent No.1 as the returned candidate from Sringeri
Assembly Constituency - 123 has to be declared as void and
further directions need to be issued to the Returning Officer for
a fresh verification and re-counting of postal ballots. He also
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
contends that when an application was filed before the
Returning Officer for re-count of the postal ballots, he could not
have cursorily rejected it by the endorsement dated
13.05.2023 on the ground that the polling agent of the
petitioner was present at the time of scrutiny of the postal
ballots. He contends that declaration of results is a solemn duty
of Returning Officer and he is bound to comply with each and
every requirement of law which has a bearing on the elections.
He contends that there was no justification for the Returning
Officer not to re-verify the postal ballots as a duty is cast upon
him to re-verify them when the victory margin is less than the
rejected votes. Thus, he contends that the Returning Officer
without any exception must have fallen in line with the
requirement of law and must have ordered re-verification of the
postal ballots. Thus, he contends that results of the election is
declared wrongly.
(iii). Learned Senior Counsel further contends that out of
1822 postal ballots of senior citizens and persons with
Disabilities, 279 votes were rejected. Rule 54A of the Rules,
1961 prescribes that the Returning Officer shall first deal with
the postal ballots as per which, the Returning Officer is bound
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
to first count the postal ballots. He shall open the covers in
Form 13C one after another and as each cover is opened, he
shall scrutinize the declaration in Form 13A contained therein.
If the declaration is not found, or is not duly signed and
attested, or is otherwise substantially defective, or if the serial
number of the ballot paper as entered in it differs from the
serial number endorsed on the cover in Form No.13B, that
cover shall not be opened, and after making an appropriate
endorsement thereon, the Returning Officer shall reject the
ballot paper therein contained. He submits that this procedure
was not complied by the Returning Officer (PW.2), which is
evident from his cross examination where he deposed as
follows:
"While rejecting a paper postal ballot votes we will
mention the reason for rejection of each votes in the
presence of counting agent and election agent and also
will be intimated to the agents, counting agents and
election agents, who were present in the counting centre
on behalf of the candidate. Witness says the reason for
rejection will not be recorded in writing".
Further, PW.2 stated as follows:
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
"I am not remembering as to whether the reasons
for rejection of postal ballots were mentioned by me in
any records or in the proceedings books given to me"
"I have not made my endorsement on the rejected
the postal ballot votes numbering 279 and on the
declaration form No.13(A). Witness volunteers all the
rejected postal ballot votes were kept in one sealed cover
and made endorsement of rejection of the postal ballot
votes."
(iv). Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Ex.P30 is
the register maintained by the Returning Officer for recording
the proceedings of counting of votes and pointed out that
during cross-examination, PW.2 deposed as follows:
"It is true that I have not mentioned reasons for
rejection of postal ballots due to defect of declaration
form No.13(A) in the counting proceedings in Ex.P30(A)."
He then referred to the evidence of PW.2, where he deposed as
follows:
"I have not personally counted the entire postal
ballot votes of 1822. Witness says that those were
counted by the Assistant Returning Officer and the
counting staffs in the presence of the micro observer"
Further "Witness (PW2) volunteers that the recent
handbook provides the ARO also shall count the votes"
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(v). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner therefore
contended that the Returning Officer has violated the procedure
prescribed for counting of votes and there is no reason
forthcoming for rejection of 279 votes. Therefore, on
13.05.2023, after the counting was over, an application
addressed to the Election Commissioner through Returning
Officer was made by the polling agent of the petitioner as per
Ex.P6 expressing doubt about the manner of counting postal
ballots and sought for re-count of the postal ballots. Thereafter,
another request was made to the Returning Officer at 4.50 p.m
as per Ex.P5 stating that the Polling Officers had made a
mistake by entering a wrong serial number of the ballot paper
which had resulted in rejection of 279 votes and hence,
requested that the rejected 279 votes be included in the
counting. He submitted that the Returning Officer rejected the
request vide Ex.P7, on the ground that the postal ballots were
scrutinized as per the guidelines of the Election Commission of
India, in the presence of the election agent of the petitioner
and that after every round of counting, the same was shown to
the election agent and a proceeding was recorded and the
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
signature of the election agent was taken and that none of the
candidates/election agents had raised any objection. He
submits that this endorsement mentioned that a copy of the
proceedings book was attached but in fact the same was not.
He submits that this fact is established beyond doubt from the
evidence of the Returning Officer (PW.2), where he deposed as
follows:
"The Assistant Revenue Officer must have sent the
copy of the Ex.P33 to the election agent of the petitioner.
I have instructed the Assistant Revenue Officer to send
the endorsement along with proceedings to the election
agent and later, I got it confirmed by telephone."
"...Witness volunteers the election agent himself
said to be informed him through telephone for having
received endorsement with proceedings."
"I have not made any entry in any of my files in
order to say that the election agent of the petitioner
called me through telephone informing, that he had
received the endorsements along with the proceedings.
The election agent Ramaswamy telephoned me on
18.05.2023"
(vi). He contends in order to cover up the mistake of the
Returning Officer in not mentioning the rejection of the postal
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
ballots in the proceedings book at Ex.P30, he tampered it and
inserted the words "JtÂPÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀƪÀðzÀ°è ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À
¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaAiÀÄAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÁgÀvÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ
Hand Book of ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ Book £À°è ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀASÉå. 217gÀ
ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌøvÀ ºÁUÀÆ wgÀ¸ÀÌøvÀzÀ CAZÉ ªÀÄvÀ ¥ÀvÀæ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w
¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ" which is marked as Ex.P30(b). He further submits that
the rejection of the request for re-counting of postal ballots was
recorded in Ex.P30 not by the Returning Officer but by his
subordinates, which is established by the evidence of PW.2 who
stated as follows:
"The proceedings written in page Nos.65 to 67 were
recorded by my subordinate staff, but not written by me".
(vii). Learned Senior counsel, therefore, submits that the
reason for rejection of the request of the petitioner's agent for
re-count of the postal ballots was concocted to help the
respondent No.1. He submits that the Returning Officer was
bound to enter the entire proceedings of counting in the book
at Ex.P30 and his failure to follows the instructions issued by
the Election Commission of India has affected the outcome of
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
the counting and hence, the postal ballots have to be re-
counted. In support of this contention, he relied upon the
judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in Sri
K.S.Manjunath Gowda v. Sri K.Y.Nanje Gowda and others
(Election Petition No.10 of 2023 decided on 16.09.2025). He
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
N.E.Horo v. Leander Tiru and Others [(1989) 4 SCC 364],
where it was held that during inspection of the ballot papers, if
any illegality is noticed, it should be corrected and High Court
has no choice or discretion but to grant relief.
(viii) That the Returning Officer has violated every
procedure prescribed in the Handbook for Returning Officer at
the time of counting the votes. He submits that the postal
ballots had to be first counted and later, the EVM votes.
However, Ex.P30 which is the register maintained by the
Returning Officer shows that the counting of EVM votes were
done first and later, the postal ballots were counted. He also
submits that the Returning Officer, who was bound to count the
postal ballots allowed the Assistant Returning Officer to count
them. Likewise, he submits that the Returning Officer who was
expected to maintain the proceedings book by attesting the
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
minutes failed to do so. He, therefore, contends that the
Returning Officer has violated every perceivable procedure
prescribed in the Handbook for Returning Officer. He further
contends that the postal ballots were in respect of persons with
disability and senior citizens who are aged 80 plus years. He
submits that the Election Officer, who was bound to assist
these incapacitated voters in filling up Form 13A, had
incorrectly made entries in Form 13A which resulted in rejection
of 279 votes. He submits that a wrong declaration made in
Form 13A cannot be held against the voter as these voters
were either physically or mentally infirm and therefore, it was
incumbent upon the Election Officer to ensure that he assisted
them in making the declaration as provided in Rule 27G of the
Rules, 1961.
(ix). Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner
or his agent was entitled to seek for a re-count before the
results of the election is declared in Form 21C. In this regard,
he invited the attention of the Court to Rule 63(2) of the Rules,
1961 and submitted that the agents of the petitioner had
rightly filed requests with the Returning Officer to re-count the
postal ballots. He also invited the attention of the Court to
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Ex.P4(e) which related procedure for counting of postal ballot
papers first. He contended that when there was no
endorsement of rejection of the postal ballots on the cover in
Form 13B by the Returning Officer, he could not have rejected
the requests of the polling agent of the petitioner for re-count
of postal ballots on the ground that the rejection of the postal
ballots was in the presence of the election agents of the
petitioner. Thus, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to
get the postal ballots re-counted. In support of this contention,
he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in P.H. Pujar v. Dr. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa
and Others [(2001) 6 SCC 558], where Mr.P.H. Pujar, was
elected as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly
from the Bagalkot constituency, defeating his rival by a margin
of 138 votes. The defeated candidate challenged the election
under Section 81 of the Act, 1951, alleging irregularities in the
counting process. During counting, 3872 ballot papers were
rejected as invalid, and 59 ballot papers were allegedly
missing. The defeated candidate contended that ballot papers
were wrongly rejected as invalid by the Returning Officer,
counting agents were denied proper inspection of rejected
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
ballots, and mandatory election procedures were not followed
by the Returning Officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that
the High Court held that Returning Officer had improperly
rejected doubtful ballot papers without correctly determining
voter intention and therefore, set aside the election of the
returned candidate and directed the Returning Officer to
recount the ballot papers properly after scrutinizing the same
and then declare the result of the election by following the
mandatory provisions of law and the directions/instructions
issued by the Election Commission. The Hon'ble Apex Court
affirmed the finding of the High Court that infirmities were
committed by the Returning Officer and directed the Registrar
of the Karnataka High Court to re-count the 3872 ballot papers
in the presence of the counsel for the appellant and respondent
No.1, and/or presence of parties or their representative. It was
ordered that the re-counting shall be conducted as per the
provisions of the relevant rules, regulations, instructions and
guidelines and report shall be sent to the Hon'ble Apex Court
within the time stipulated therein. The Hon'ble Apex Court did
not express any opinion on the aspect of 59 missing ballot
papers and on the legality of direction in the judgment
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
impugned therein regarding re-count of all ballot papers after
proper scrutiny and also about the legality of direction declaring
as void the declaration of the election in question.
(x). Learned Senior counsel further submits that the
respondent No.1 had deliberately filed a false declaration which
is not in compliance with Rule 4A of the Rules, 1961. He
submitted that the respondent No.1 was in possession of huge
black money which he pumped into the election. He submits
that this is evident from Ex.P9 which is the certified copy of the
election affidavit of the respondent No.1 filed in the year 2013
which shows that the cash available with the respondent No.1
was Rs.2,55,000/- and while his wife had Rs.2,00,000/- and his
three dependents had Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- and
Rs.1,50,000/- respectively and the value of all deposits,
amount lying in savings bank account and fixed deposits was a
sum of Rs.14,50,000/-. He claimed that he had investment of
Rs.4,45,00,000/- in M/s.Pragathi developers while his second
dependent possessed 90% stake in Banuvalli plantation,
Chikkamagaluru valued at Rs.40,00,000/-. There was small
investments made in L.I.C bonds while gold and other valuables
were approximately valued at Rs.4,00,00,000/-. The net cash
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
value of the respondent No.1 was Rs.6,44,80,145/- while his
wife owned cash and movables of Rs.7,06,16,000/-, his first
dependent possessed cash and movables worth
Rs.51,00,000/-, his second dependent had cash and movables
worth Rs.1,90,80,000/- and 4th dependent owned cash and
movables of Rs.81,00,000/-. He invited the attention of the
Court to the affidavit of respondent No.1 filed in connection
with the elections held in the year 2018 which is marked as
Ex.P10 as well as the affidavit submitted to Lokayukta which is
marked as Ex.P11 and the list of properties submitted to the
respondent No.1 to the Lokayukta as Ex.P12 for the financial
year ending 31.03.2020. He also invited the attention of the
Court to the declaration(s) filed before Lokayukta in respect of
assets and liabilities for the financial year(s) ending 31.03.2021
and 31.03.2022 respectively, which were marked as Exs.P13
and P14. He invited the attention of the Court to the affidavit
filed by the respondent No.1 which is marked as Ex.P15 and
submitted that this affidavit was filed as per Rule 4A of the
Rules, 1961 and submitted that the respondent No.1 had
deliberately not disclosed the acquisition of a huge estate called
M/s.Shaban Ramzan. In this regard, he invited the attention of
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
the Court to Ex.P18, which is a declaration filed by authorized
representative of M/s.Shaban Ramzan, a Partnership Firm
depositing the title deeds of the estate of Shaban Ramzan in
favour of Standard Chartered bank on 17.06.2015 for raising a
loan of Rs.30,75,00,000/-. He then invited the attention of the
court to the Ex.P19, which is the supplemental memorandum of
entry for deposit of title deeds executed by the mortgagor / Mr.
Manjunatha Poojary on 20.06.2018 for additional working
capital and term loan exposure of Rs.55,75,00,000/-. He then
invited the attention of the Court to Ex.P20, which is a deed of
admission/retirement and re-constitution of M/s.Shaban
Ramzan dated 06.01.2020 (signed on 09.01.2020), was filed
by the wife of respondent No.1 reporting the induction of her
son as a partner of M/s.Shaban Ramzan and the particulars of
the outgoing partners. Ex.P20 shows that the partnership
M/s.Shaban Ramzan was constituted under a deed dated
04.01.1984 with Mr. V.G. Siddhartha inducted as a Partner to
the said Firm as per a re-constitution deed dated 01.09.1993.
He submits that this discloses that the Firm was again re-
constituted on 26.07.2019 by which, Mrs.Vasanthi Hedge, Mr.
Amarthya Siddhartha and Mr.Ishaan Hedge were new incoming
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
partners. It also discloses that Mr.V.G.Siddhartha died on
29.07.2019 leaving behind his mother, wife and two sons. As
per Ex.P27, which is a deed of admission, retirement and re-
constitution of the partnership Firm - M/s. Shaban Ramzan
dated 27.12.2019, the wife of respondent No.1 was inducted as
a partner while Mrs.Vasanthi Hegde and Mrs.Malavika Hegde
retired from the Firm. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submitted that in terms of the Ex.P20, deed of admission,
retirement and re-constitution of the partnership Firm dated
06.01.2020, Mr.Amarthya Siddhartha and Mr.Ishaan hedge also
retired from the Partnership Firm - M/s. Shaban Ramzan while
Mr. Rajdev T.R., the son of the respondent No.1 was inducted
as a partner. He, therefore, submits that the full dominion and
control of the Firm and its assets are held by the wife and son
of respondent No.1, which however was not disclosed by the
respondent No.1 in his affidavit of assets and liabilities filed as
per Ex.P15. He further submits that Standard Chartered Bank
has executed Deed of Discharge dated 13.02.2020 (Ex.P21)
registered on 27.02.2020 under which M/s.Shaban Ramzan
represented by the wife of the respondent No.1 has paid a sum
of Rs.55,75,00,000/- to the said Bank towards outstanding
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
loan. He also brought to the notice of the Court Ex.P22, which
is another Release Deed dated 13.02.2020 (registered on
27.02.2020) executed by Bank of Baroda in favour of
M/s.Shaban Ramzan represented by the wife of respondent
No.1, by which the entire loan amount of Rs.66,00,00,000/-
and accrued interest was cleared. He also invited the attention
of the Court to a Deed of Release (Ex.P23) dated 11.05.2020
executed by the Karnataka Bank Limited, Chikkamagalur
Branch, in favour of M/s.Shaban Ramzan represented by the
wife of the respondent No.1 in terms of which a sum of
Rs.81,95,000/- was paid up. It appears that the title deeds of
M/s.Shaban Ramzan were then mortgaged with Canara Bank,
Chikamagalur Main Branch, on 26.06.2020 under the
memorandum of deposit of title deeds (Ex.P24) for credit
facilities up to a limit of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. He also invited the
attention of the Court to Ex.P25, which is a General Power of
Attorney executed by Mr. Rajdev T.R., the son of the
respondent No.1 in favour of Mrs. D.K Pushpa, the wife of the
respondent No.1 to deal with the properties of M/s.Shaban
Ramzan. He also invited the attention of the Court to Ex.P26
which is memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
21.10.2021 executed by the wife and son of respondent No.1
and another in favour of Canara Bank, Chikkamagalur Main
Branch, for a Farm Development loan up to a limit of
Rs.3,00,00,000/-. He, therefore, submits that a huge sum of
more than Rs.100 crores was paid to Bank of Baroda and
Standard Chartered Bank after the wife of the respondent No.1
was inducted into M/s. Shaban Ramzan Firm. This he submits
shows that the respondent No.1 was in possession of huge
black money which is utilized to pay off the loan and the same
is not disclosed anywhere in the returns filed or in the affidavit
filed by the respondent No.1 during the elections held in 2023.
He, therefore, submits that the respondent No.1 has not
disclosed his financial dealings and thereby, had substantially
suppressed his financial position. He submits that if only the
electorate knew about his financial dealings, they would not
have exercised their franchise in favour of the respondent No.1.
He submits that such filing of a false affidavit, amounts to a
corrupt practice and hence, his election as a returned candidate
from Sringeri Assembly Constituency - 123 is liable to be
declared as void.
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(xi). Learned senior counsel further contends that the
respondent No.1, his election agents, as well as his political
party have deliberately indulged in tarnishing the image of the
petitioner in the eyes of the electorate. He submits that a false
case was filed against the petitioner accusing him of an offence
punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The petitioner had filed O.S No.6098/2013 (Ex.P29) against
individuals as well as various Television networks to restrain
them from transmitting, publishing, distributing, sharing any
material in any permanent / transient / audio format in any
print media / television channels, local cable operated
channel/internet/website/radio channel/social media etc.
anything concerning the plaintiff with defendant Nos.1 and 2
therein articles or news item which was sub judice in Crime
No.36/2013 and the Trial Court after considering the case of
the petitioner, had decreed the suit and restrained the
defendants from disclosing or publishing any news or articles in
media with respect to the petitioner's alleged relationship with
defendant No.2 therein till disposal of criminal case in Crime
No.36/2013. He submitted that a 'B' report was filed as regards
the petitioner which was accepted and the case is given a
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
quietus. He submits that the fact that the petitioner was given
a clean chit by the Police was known to everyone in the
Constituency but yet, the Ex-Chief Minister of the State of
Karnataka while campaigning had brought up the involvement
of the petitioner in the "rape case" and influenced the women
electorate against voting in favour of the petitioner. In this
regard, he invited the attention of the Court to Ex.P47, which
contains videos of the defamatory statements made by the Ex-
Chief Minister as well as the Whatsapp forwards. Likewise, he
invited the attention of the Court to Exs.P47(a), 47(b) and
47(c) and submitted that these messages were forwarded by
the Block Congress President on various WhatsApp groups with
an intent to tarnish the image of the petitioner and show him in
bad taste. He submits that PW.3 was the one who had received
these messages and there was no cross-examination of PW.3
on these messages. He invited the attention of the Court to
Section 123(4) of the Act, 1951 and submitted that the above
statements were made by none other than the Ex-Chief
Minister, the Block President of Congress and therefore, it
cannot be gainsaid that it was without the consent of the
respondent No.1. He submits that wherever such adverse
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
campaigning was made, the petitioner had secured lesser votes
than the respondent No.1 and this shows that this false
messaging had impacted the electorate in voting against the
petitioner. He also invited the attention of the Court to Ex.P34,
which was a complaint lodged by the President of Koppa, BJP to
the Election Officer bringing to his notice a pamphlet released
by the respondent No.1 which did not have details of the
permission granted by the Election Commission and the EPIC
particulars of voters were mentioned therein. On the rear side
of this pamphlet several assurances were made to influence the
voters. He also submitted that the President of
Narasimharajapura Taluk, BJP had submitted information to the
Election Officer, Koppa as per Ex.P36 bringing to his notice a
WhatsApp communication forwarded by one Mr. Vasu H.A.
forwarding a publication made in Tunga Varte accusing the
petitioner of badmouthing Brahmins. Likewise, a complaint was
lodged by Mr. T.S. Umesh President of Sringeri Taluk BJP, to
the Election Officer, Koppa bringing to his notice a similar
WhatsApp forward by one Mr.Vasu H.A. on 'Megur Str' group.
He submits that this propaganda has affected the prospects of
the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the respondent No.1
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
has indulged in corrupt practice to tarnish the image of the
petitioner and also in sowing seeds of distrust and promoting
hatred amongst the electorate belonging to the Brahmin caste.
This he submits should result in the election of respondent No.1
to be declared as void.
(xii). He further submits that despite these complaints,
no action was initiated against the respondent No.1 by the
Authority. Thus, he contends that the respondent No.1 is guilty
of indulging in corrupt practices and therefore, the election of
the respondent No.1 is liable to be declared as void.
8. The Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel
for respondent No.1 are as follows:
(i) The petitioner has not pleaded any material facts or
material particulars as to how he is entitled for a re-count of
the votes polled and as to how the respondent No.1 has
indulged in corrupt practices or as to how he has maligned the
image of the petitioner. He submits that the pleadings assume
immense significance in an Election Petition as proof thereof
would result in declaring the elections of a returned candidate
void. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is bound to
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
plead each and every allegation precisely with particulars so as
to afford an opportunity to the returned candidate to contest
the allegations. He submits that a perusal of the entire election
petition shows that there is no pleading as to why and how the
petitioner is entitled for re-count of votes and as to when and
how the respondent No.1 had indulged in corrupt practice. On
the contrary, he contends that the allegations are vague and
evasive and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. He
drew support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in:
Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Others
[2023 SCC OnLine SC 573]; Samant N.Balkrishna and
another v. George Fernandez and Others [(1969) 3 SCC
238]; Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi
[1987 (Supp) SCC 93] and Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi
[1986 (Supp) SCC 315]. He submits that petitioner has not
even mentioned precisely that the rejection of 279 postal
ballots has materially affected his prospects of being elected or
has materially affected the election of the respondent No.1. He
submits that the petitioner has at times claimed that he is
entitled for re-count of votes and at times has claimed that he
is entitled for getting the postal ballots re-verified. He submits
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
that there is a world of difference between the two and he
cannot ask for a re-count of postal ballots unless he pleaded
particulars of the votes wrongly cast or rejected or counted.
Petitioner is not sure whether he wants a re-count of the postal
ballots or re-verification. He argued, that the petitioner did not
even contend that the 279 postal ballots were rejected wrongly.
He, therefore, submits that the election petition is liable to be
rejected on this short ground alone. In support of this
contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
(a) M.Chinnasamy v. K.C.Palanisamy and Others [(2004)
6 SCC 341], where it was held "It is trite that an order of
re-counting of votes can be passed when the following
ingredients are satisfied: (1) if there is a prima facie
case; (2) material facts therefore are pleaded; (3) the
court shall not direct re-counting by way of roving or
fishing inquiry; and (iv) such an objection had been taken
recourse to. ...A direction for re-counting shall not be
issued only because the margin of votes between the
returned candidate and the election petitioner is narrow."
It reiterated that "The degree of proof for issuing a
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
direction of re-counting of votes must be of a very high
standard and is required to be discharged."
(b) P.H.Pujar v. Dr. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa and
Others [(2001) 6 SCC 558], where it was held "the
recount of the votes cannot be ordered in a casual
manner. It cannot be ordered because the margin of
defeat is meager. For seeking re-count, proper foundation
is to be laid in the pleadings by setting out material facts
and later proving it by adducing requisite evidence. The
re-count cannot be ordered on the ipse dixit of the
election petitioner. It can be ordered in rare cases where
specific allegations are made and proved so as to do
complete justice between the parties.
(c) Beliram Bhalaik v. Jai Beharilal Khachi and Another
[(1975)4 SCC 417], where it was held "From all that has
been said above it is clear that the allegations of
irregularities and illegalities in the counting of votes have
been subsequently invented as an after-thought. That
apart, these allegations in the petition are more or less
vague and general. They are lacking in material facts. The
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
evidence adduced in regard to this issue also does not
make out a prima facie case for a recount.
(d) Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra and
others [(1975) 4 SCC 822], where it was held "The Court
would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot
papers only where: (1) the election-petition contains an
adequate statement of all the material facts on which the
allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are
founded; (2) on the basis of evidence adduced such
allegations are prima facie established, affording a good
ground for believing that there has been a mistake in
counting; and (iii) the court trying the petition is prima
facie satisfied that the making of such an order is
imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do
complete and effectual justice between the parties.
(e) Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh and
Others [1993 Supp (2) SCC 82], where it was held "It is
thus obvious that neither during the counting nor on the
completion of the counting there was any valid ground
available for the recount of the ballot papers. A cryptic
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
application claiming recount was made by the petitioner-
respondent before the Returning Officer. No details of any
kind were given in the said application. Not even a single
instance showing any irregularity or illegality in the
counting was brought to the notice of the Returning
Officer. We are of the view when there was no
contemporaneous evidence to show any irregularity or
illegality in the counting ordinarily, it would not be proper
to order recount on the basis of bare allegations in the
election petition."
(f) K.P Mohammed Musthafa v. Najeeb Kanthapuram
and Others [2024 SCC OnLine Ker 4597], where it was
held "the intention of the legislature is quite clear as no
option has been given to the RO to accept a ballot paper
which is defective as provided under Rule 54-A(4) be it
the mistake(s) of the polling officer(s) or the voter.
Further, clause (a) of Rule 64 says that the candidate
who has obtained the largest number of valid votes shall
be declared as elected. Hence, a vote which is not valid
as per the Act/or Rules cannot be treated as valid and
counted."
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(ii) That in paragraph No.13 of the Election Petition, the
petitioner referred to the endorsement dated 13.05.2023 issued
by the Returning Officer rejecting the request of the agent of the
petitioner for re-count of postal ballots but he does not state
how the endorsement is wrong. He also does not mention how
the non-verification of the postal ballots has materially affected
the results of the election. He contends that the petitioner and
his agent who were privy to the counting were bound to mention
how the refusal to re-count the postal ballots has materially
affected the results of the election. In this regard, he relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in L.R.
Shivaramagowda and others v. T.M.Chandrashekar
(Dead) by Lrs. and Others [(1999) 1 SCC 666].
(iii) He submits that Rule 15 of the Handbook for
Returning Officer quoted in the petition is actually not found in
the Handbook for Candidates issued in 2009 marked as Ex.P4.
He fairly submitted that the respondent No.1 has not raised this
contention in his objection statement though it was mentioned
that the petitioner had wrongly relied on Handbook for
Returning Officers 2014. Even otherwise, he contends that
petitioner did not suggest to PW.2 that he did not re-verify the
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
postal ballots but on the contrary, PW.2 categorically mentioned
that he had complied with all the guidelines issued by the
Election Commission of India, while rejecting the postal ballots
and also in the matter relating to recount.
(iv) As regards the allegations of corrupt practice, the
learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the
petitioner has vaguely stated these allegations in paragraph
No.23 of the petition but bereft of basic facts and particulars.
He argued that the petitioner has not mentioned how, when and
where the respondent No.1 has used black money to win over
the voters. He submits that the petition completely lacks
particulars and the allegations are very vague and uncertain. He
contends that as regards the allegation of tarnishing the image
of the petitioner, he has not mentioned specific instances with
date and how his image was tarnished in the eyes of the
electorate. This again he submits is bald, evasive and does not
contain material facts and particulars. He also submits that the
petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.1 had made false
promises to lure the voters but did not give the material facts
with particulars and hence the pleadings are vague and
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
uncertain. He relied upon the judgment in M.Chinnasamy
(supra), where it was held as follows:
"44. The requirement of laying foundation in the
pleadings must also be considered having regard to the
fact that the onus to prove the allegations was on the
election petitioner. The degree of proof for issuing a
direction of re-counting of votes must be of a very high
standard and is required to be discharged. (See Mahender
Pratap v. Krishan Pal [(2003) 1 SCC 390] .)
45. In T.H. Musthaffa [(1999) 8 SCC 692] this
Court held that when the pleadings do not contain the
material facts and necessary particulars, any amount of
evidence would be insufficient.
46 [Ed.: Para 46 corrected vide Corrigendum
No. F.3/Ed.B.J./72/2004.] .Even if on re-count it was
found that the returned candidate had not secured
majority of the votes, the result could not have been
disturbed unless prima facie case of high degree of
probability existed for re-count of votes. (See P.K.K.
Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen [(1989) 1
SCC 526] , SCC at pp. 530, 531.)"
and the judgments in the same vein in P.H.Pujar vs Dr.Kanthi
Rajashekhar Kidiyappa and Others [2002 (3) SCC 742],
Beliram Bhalaik vs Jai Beharilal Khachi and another [1975
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(4) SCC 417], Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs A.Santhana
Kumar and others [2023 SCC Online 573].
(v) He then referred to the prayer in the petition and
contended that the petition has not disclosed the provision of
law in Act, 1951 under which he is seeking relief. He submits
that the case of the petitioner must lie within the contours of
Section 100 or 101 of Act, 1951. As regards the alternative
relief of re-counting, he contends that there is no averment of
malpractice in counting the votes or in rejecting the votes or in
accepting votes that are invalid. There is also no averment that
rejection of 279 ballots has materially affected the results of the
election. Further he contends that the petitioner ought to have
sought for an additional relief to declare him as the returned
candidate as prescribed under Section 84 of the Act, 1951. He
submits that the petitioner cannot seek recount without seeking
a declaration that he be declared as the returned candidate. He
submits that if the petitioner had sought for such a relief, then
the respondent No.1 was entitled to file a recrimination petition.
In this regard, he relied upon the judgment in Dharmin Bai
Kashyap v. Babli Sahu and others [2023 (10) SCC 461],
which related to Panchayath elections and provisions of
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Chattisgarh Panchayath Nirvacham Niyam, 1995 was para
materia with the Act, 1951. The dispute in that case related to
recount of votes and it was held Rule 6 of the Rules, 1961
provides that the petitioner may claim a declaration that the
election of all or any of the returned candidates is void and in
addition thereto, a further declaration that he himself or any
other candidate has been duly elected. It was held that in view
of the said Rule 6, there was no shadow of doubt that in the
election petition filed under Section 122 of the Act, the reliefs
claimed have to be in consonance with the said Rule 6 of the
Rules, 1995.
(vi). He referred to issue Nos.1 to 4 and submitted that
issue No.1 relates to counting of postal ballots and issue No.2
relates to justification in rejecting the request of the petitioner
for recounting while issue No.3 is whether the results of the
election were declared without considering the objections raised
by the petitioner and issue No.4 deals with the question whether
the provisions contained in the Act, 1951 and Rules, 1961 are
mandatory and the handbook for Returning Officers being
subordinate legislation are directory when there is a conflict.
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(vii). While addressing arguments on the above issues,
he submitted that on 13.05.2023 at 4.38 p.m, the agent of the
petitioner submitted a letter (Ex.P6) to the Election Commission
through the Returning Officer for "recount the votes for 123
Sringeri Assembly" as he had "doubts with regard to postal
ballots" and hence requested for "recount of postal ballots". He
referred to Ex.P5, which was a letter submitted by the election
agent of the petitioner at 4.50 pm on 13.05.2023 to the
Returning Officer, stating that the polling officers had wrongly
mentioned the ballot serial number on Form 13, as a result of
which 279 postal ballots were rejected which was the cause for
defeat of the petitioner. He therefore requested that the 279
rejected postal votes be taken into account and recount the
postal ballots of persons aged 80+ and handicapped persons.
He submits that the case of the petitioner was initially recount
of postal ballots but later was for recount of all votes. He
contends that votes cast on EVM cannot be invalid and at the
most the recount can be only in respect of the postal ballots.
He contends that the election agent of the petitioner was
present throughout the process of counting the postal ballots
and every vote that was invalid was rejected in the presence of
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
the election agents and none of them raised any objection at
the time of rejecting the postal ballots or while counting the
valid votes. Therefore, the Returning Officer rightly issued the
endorsement at Ex.P7 rejecting the request of the election
agent of the petitioner at Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. He then invited the
attention of the Court to the evidence of the Returning Officer
who was examined as PW.2 who deposed as follows:
"While rejecting a paper postal ballot votes, we will
mention the reason for rejection of each votes in the
presence of counting agent and election agent and also
will be intimated to the agents, counting agents and
election agents who were present in the counting centre
on behalf of the candidate"
Further, he deposed "It is true while rejecting the ballot papers,
we used to declare the reasons loudly to the agents and it will
also be recorded by videography."
Further, PW.2 deposed "At the time of counting the postal
ballots, the candidates and their agents were present" "It is
true to suggest that the rejection of Form No.13A was done in
the presence of the candidates and their agents. I Have
- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
exhibited the declaration in Form No.13A to the candidates and
their agents, who were present".
Further, PW.2 deposed:
"I have also orally informed all the candidates and
their agents about the reasons for rejection of Form
No.13A. None of the candidates or their agents raised any
objections against rejection of Form No.13A."
(viii). He then invited the attention of the Court to the
evidence of PW.1 where he deposed "I also appointed the
counting agents. There were 16 counting agents were
appointed including Ramaswamy. All those 16 agents were
physically present at the time of counting of votes."
Further he deposed "I was present in the counting centre from
morning 7-30 am till 1-00 pm. I also was present while starting
of counting of the postal ballot votes." Further he deposed "at
the time of declaring the said postal ballot votes, my election
agents were present".
(ix). He submits that the above evidence would
substantially establish that the invalid votes were rejected in
the presence of the agents of the petitioner. Therefore, he
- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
contends that the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting
the request of the election agents of the petitioner for a recount
of the postal votes. He contends that Rule 63 of the Rules,
1961 deals with the procedure for a recount and submits that a
request for recount must be justified by reasons and the
discretion to allow recount or not is with the Returning Officer.
He contends that just because the winning margin is thin, there
can be no recount on that ground. He relied upon the judgment
in R.Narayanan v. S.Semmalai and others [1980 (2) SCC
537] to contend that recount cannot be ordered on mere
possibility of error and mere fact of a small margin of victory is
not sufficient to order for recount. He submits that the
discretion to consider the request for recount is with the
Returning Officer and in the present case since the request for
recount was not based on any reason, the Returning Officer
after being satisfied that the process of counting the votes was
done transparently and the election agents of the petitioner
were all present at the time of counting, rightly rejected the
request for recount. He contends that the request for
recounting must be based on solid grounds and cannot be
granted for the mere asking. He therefore submits that the
- 66 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
reliefs sought for in the petition cannot be granted and the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
(x). He contends that the petitioner has clamed that 279
postal ballots were rejected due to the mistake of the polling
officers and the voters cannot be held responsible for this and
therefore, these 279 votes must be taken into account. He
submits that the Returning Officer has complied with the Rule
54A of the Rules, 1961 in rejecting the postal ballots which
were invalid and such rejection was in the presence of the
election agent of the petitioner. He therefore submits that these
votes cannot be taken into account. In support of this
contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High
Court in the case of K.P.Mohammed Musthafa v. Najeeb
Kanthapuram and Others [2024 SCC Online Ker 4597]
where it was held as follows:
"27. Therefore it is clear that, it is Rule 54-A that
is applicable in the case on hand and not Rule 56. The
dictum in Jibontara Ghatowar case relied on by the
election petitioner cannot be applied as it deals with the
first proviso to Rule 56 which deals with counting of votes
other than postal ballots. There is no proviso similar to
the first proviso to Rule 56 in Rule 54-A(4). Sub-rule (4)
- 67 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
says that if Form 13-A declaration is not found, or if the
serial number of ballot paper entered in it differs from the
serial number endorsed in Form 13-B cover, then the
Form 13-B cover shall not be opened, and after making
an appropriate endorsement thereon, the RO shall reject
the ballot paper therein contained. Compliance of sub-rule
(4) is mandatory and the RO has not been given any
discretion/option as has been given to the RO in the first
proviso to Rule 56. Further, the language in sub-rule (4)
to Rule 54-A does not differentiate between a mistake
committed by the Poll Officer(s) and that committed by a
voter. Likewise sub-rule (4) to Rule 54-A does not
differentiate between a voter under Rule 24 and an
absentee voter to whom Ext. A-1 is applicable.
28. Moreover, as held in Hari Vishnu Kamath
case, a vote which is void cannot be accepted as valid by
this Court . In the said case the argument that the
election Rules is to discover the intention of the majority
of the voters in the choice of a representative and that if
an elector has shown a clear intention to vote for a
particular candidate, that must be taken into account
under Section 100(2)(c), even though the vote might be
bad for non-compliance with the formalities, was rejected.
It was held that when the law prescribes the intention to
be expressed in a particular manner, it can be taken into
account only if it is so expressed. An intention not duly
expressed is, in a court of law, in the same position as an
intention not expressed at all.
- 68 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
29. Therefore, a vote liable to be rejected as per
the Rules cannot be taken into consideration and treated
as valid. The intention of the legislature is quite clear as
no option has been given to the RO to accept a ballot
paper which is defective as provided under Rule 54-A(4)
be it the mistake(s) of the polling officer(s) or the voter.
Further, clause (a) of Rule 64 says that the candidate who
has obtained the largest number of valid votes shall be
declared as elected. Hence, a vote which is not valid as
per the Act/or Rules cannot be treated as valid and
counted."
(xi). He contends that issue Nos.5 to 11 relate to corrupt
practices. He submits that the petitioner without pleading the
allegations of corrupt practice cannot challenge the election of
the respondent No.1 on those grounds. He submits that Section
83 of the Act, 1951 mandates that the petition shall contain a
concise statement of material facts and set forth full particulars
of any corrupt practice including the names of the parties
involved and the place where such corrupt practice was done.
He contends that the petitioner without pleading the particulars
of the alleged corrupt practice has tried to furnish proof of such
corrupt practice in the course of evidence and therefore, the
same cannot be looked into. He submits that the petitioner was
bound to plead and prove the nature of corrupt practice but the
- 69 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
same is lacking in the petition and hence cannot be looked into.
Therefore he contends that these issues have to be answered
against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent No.1.
(xii). While referring to each of the issues, the learned
Senior counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the petitioner
has alleged that the respondent No.1 has not disclosed the
interest that his wife had in M/s.Shaban Ramzan but in Ex.P15,
which is the affidavit filed along with the nomination, the
respondent No.1 had disclosed about his wife having interest in
M/s.Shaban Ramzan. He contends that the petitioner was in
possession of documents marked as Exs.P9, P10, P11, P12,
P13, P14, P19, P20 and P27 at the time of filing the petition
and therefore, was bound to plead these contentions, so that
respondent No.1 could respond to them. He contends that the
petitioner has not disclosed how exactly, the respondent No.1
had used black money for election purposes and committed
election malpractice. Further, he contends that there is nothing
to show how the petitioner came to the conclusion that the
respondent No.1 had overspent in the election. As regards hate
speeches, he contends that the petition is clearly silent as to
when and who made those speeches and how was it
- 70 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
objectionable and how it impacted the voters. Thus he contends
that these are allegations that are baseless. As regards the
alleged false promises, he submits that PW.1 specifically
admitted that these false promises according to him were the
election manifesto of the Congress Party. Therefore, he
contends that there is nothing to show that the respondent
No.1 had made any false promises. Further there are no details
of paid news, paid campaigns and paid opinion to tilt the minds
of the voters by bribing various section of the media due to
which 5000 to 6000 voters turned up and voted in favour of
respondent No.1. He contends that this is a hollow statement
made without any pleading or proof. He submits that there are
no pleadings or proof as to with whom the respondent No.1 had
made truce and who overtly or covertly supported to divide the
votes of the petitioner. Further, there are no particulars as to in
which booth, 2000 to 3000 bogus votes and dummy voters cast
votes. He submits that none of the allegations made against
the respondent No.1 accusing him of corrupt practices or
election malpractices are either pleaded or proved and
therefore prays that the election petition be dismissed.
- 71 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(xiii). As regards Issue Nos.12 to 18, he submitted that
the above submissions would answer Issue Nos.12 to 18. He
thus prays that the Election Petition be dismissed.
9. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
replied to the above submissions as follows:
(i). That an application was filed by the respondent
No.1 for rejection of the Election Petition on the ground that it
did not contain material facts and particulars, which was
rejected by this Court and later confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in C.A. No.11013/2024 in terms of the order dated
27.09.2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that as regards the
first set of allegations, namely wrongful rejection / acceptance
of the postal ballot papers, there is no serious contest and
therefore, the High Court will proceed with the Election Petition
on that ground in accordance with law. As regards allegations
of corrupt practice, it held that the documents are yet to be
formally brought on record by the petitioner. It also reserved
liberty to the respondent No.1 to raise objections regarding
admissibility or relevance of the documents at an appropriate
stage.
- 72 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(ii). He, therefore, contends that the material facts
pleaded and material particulars furnished by way of evidence,
sufficiently establish the case of the petitioner for re-
verification, re-count of postal ballots and also the corrupt
practices indulged in by the respondent No.1. Hence, he argued
that it cannot be contended that the petition lacks material
facts and particulars. He, therefore, contends that material
facts pleaded and the material particulars furnished by way of
evidence, sufficiently establish the case of the petitioner.
(iii) He relied on the decision in Munirathna's case to
contend that in a case of corrupt practice, there can be no
assumption that if it was known to the electorate that the
returned candidate had indulged in corrupt practice, they would
have voted in favour of the immediately defeated candidate
and therefore, even if an additional relief is not sought for as
provided under Section 84 of the Act, 1951, the petition cannot
be dismissed.
(iv). In a case of re-counting of votes, he submits that
the process involves re-counting the votes and if after such a
re-count, there is any difference, then the Returning Officer
- 73 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
may amend the declaration of the result. Therefore, he
contends that there is no need for seeking additional relief that
the petitioner should be declared as a returned candidate. He
submitted that this was the declaration of law in Soumya
Reddy's case.
(v). He submitted that even if no such additional relief is
sought for, the High Court while trying an Election Petition
continues to be a High Court for all purposes and possess
discretion to grant the reliefs that the petitioner is entitled to by
moulding the relief. In this regard, he referred to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Mairembam Prithviraj @
Prithviraj Singh v. Shri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh
[CA 2649 of 2016].
(vi). He submitted that the Returning Officer specifically
admitted that he had not made endorsement on the cover in
Form 13B about the reason for rejection of the postal ballot and
thereafter replace the declaration in Form 13A and the cover in
Form 13B in the cover in Form No.13C and bundle all such
rejected ballots in a separate packet on which the name of the
Constituency, the date of counting and a brief description of the
- 74 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
contents should be mentioned. He submits that the Returning
Officer has admitted that no endorsements were made on the
cover in Form 13B. Therefore he contends that there is no
reason mentioned as to why 279 postal ballots were rejected.
He contends that PW.2 in his deposition stated "Witness says
the reason for rejection will not be recorded in writing".
Consequently, he contends that these postal votes have to be
re-counted and in that process, the reason for rejection of the
postal ballots will once again be verified. He contends that
under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 54A of the Rules, 1961, only those
votes that are substantially defective that can be rejected. He
therefore submits whether all the 279 votes were substantially
defective or not has to be re-verified. He submits that the
Returning Officer was bound to count the postal ballots, but he
allowed the Assistant Returning Officer to count them and he
tried to substantiate it by claiming that the present Handbook
permits it, though there is no such permission. He submitted
that an application is filed to inspect all the 279 rejected votes
and prays that the same be allowed. In support of this
contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
- 75 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Court in Dr.Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh and others
[AIR 1966 SC 773].
(vii). As per Ex.P7, the Returning Officer stated that the
election agents were there at the time of scrutiny of the votes
and therefore, the request of the petitioner for re-count of
postal ballots cannot be considered. As per Rule 63 of the
Rules, 1961, right to seek re-count of votes is only after
declaration in Form 20 is issued by the Returning Officer. He
submitted that contrarily, the Returning Officer in his evidence
stated "Before rejecting the prayer of the petitioners agent for
recounting, I have already declared the result of the winning
candidate. Witness further says that the requisition was made
by the petitioners agent only after orally declaring the result
that respondent No.1 won the election by margin of 201 votes."
(viii). That Petitioner has sought for re-count of postal
ballots and declare the result of election afresh. He submits that
if the postal ballots are re-counted and if there is any difference
in the votes, then a fresh declaration has to be issued, in which
event if the petitioner is victorious, he may be declared a
- 76 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
returned candidate. Therefore, he contends that there is no
need to seek for an alternate relief.
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel
for the respondent No.1. I have also perused the material
exhibits and the oral evidence adduced by the parties.
11. The issues framed are answered as follows:
i) Re-casted Issue No.1: In the affirmative;
ii) Issue No.2: In the affirmative;
iii) Issue No.3: In the affirmative;
iv) Issue No.4: In the affirmative;
v) Issue No.5: In the negative;
vi) Issue No.6: In the negative;
vii) Issue No.7: In the negative;
viii) Issue No.8: In the negative;
ix) Issue No.9: In the negative;
x) Issue No.10: In the negative;
xi) Issue No.11: In the negative;
xii) Issue No.12: In the negative;
xiii) Issue No.13: In the negative;
xiv) Issue No.14: In the negative;
xv) Issue No.15: Partly in the affirmative;
- 77 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
xvi) Issue No.16: in the negative;
xvii) Issue No.17: Partly in the affirmative;
xviii) Issue No.18: in the affirmative;
xix) Issue No.19: As per the final Order.
12. Before answering the issues framed by this Court, it
is first appropriate to extract relevant provisions of the
Constitution of India, the Act, 1951, the Rules, 1961 which
have a bearing on this case.
(i). Article 324 of the Constitution of India
(1) The superintendence, direction and control of
the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct
of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of
every State and of elections to the offices of President and
Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested
in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the
Election Commission).
(2) The Election Commission shall consist of the
Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other
Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from
time to time fix and the appointment of the Chief Election
Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall,
subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf
by Parliament, be made by the President.
- 78 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(3) When any other Election Commissioner is so
appointed the Chief Election Commissioner shall act as
the Chairman of the Election Commission.
(4) Before each general election to the House of
the People and to the Legislative Assembly of each State,
and before the first general election and thereafter before
each biennial election to the Legislative Council of each
State having such Council, the President may also appoint
after consultation with the Election Commission such
Regional Commissioners as he may consider necessary to
assist the Election Commission in the performance of the
functions conferred on the Commission by clause (1).
(5) Subject to the provisions of any law made by
Parliament, the conditions of service and tenure of office
of the Election Commissioners and the Regional
Commissioners shall be such as the President may by rule
determine:
Provided that the Chief Election Commissioner shall
not be removed from his office except in like manner and
on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court and
the conditions of service of the Chief Election
Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage
after his appointment:
Provided further that any other Election
Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be
removed from office except on the recommendation of the
Chief Election Commissioner.
- 79 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(6) The President, or the Governor of a State,
shall, when so requested by the Election Commission,
make available to the Election Commission or to a
Regional Commissioner such staff as may be necessary
for the discharge of the functions conferred on the
Election Commission by clause (1).
(ii). Section 24 of the RP Act, 1951
General duty of the returning officer.--It shall
be general duty of the returning officer at any election to
do all such acts and things as may be necessary for
effectually conducting the election in the manner provided
by this Act and rules or orders made thereunder.
(iii). Section 64 of the Act,1951
Counting of votes.--At every election where a poll
is taken, votes shall be counted by or under the
supervision and direction of, the returning officer, and
each contesting candidate, his election agent and his
counting agents, shall have a right to be present at the
time of counting.
(iv) Section 83 of the Act, 1951
Contents of petition.--(1) An election petition--
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the
material facts on which the petitioner relies;
- 80 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt
practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a
statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged
to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and
place of the commission of each such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in
the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any
corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by
an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the
allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars
thereof.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition
shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
same manner as the petition.
(v) Section 84 of Act, 1951
84. Relief that may be claimed by the
Petitioner.-The petitioner may, in addition to claiming a
declaration that the election of all or any of the returned
candidates is void may claim further declaration that he
himself or any other candidate is duly elected.
- 81 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(vi) Section 100 of Act, 1951
100. Grounds for declaring election to be
void.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if
the High court is of opinion--
(a) that on the date of his election a returned
candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be
chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act or
the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of
1963); or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed
by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any
other person with the consent of a returned candidate or
his election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly
rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it
concerns a returned candidate, has been materially
affected--
(i) by the improper acceptance or any
nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the
interests of the returned candidate by an agent other than
his election agent, or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or
rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is
void, or
- 82 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of
the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders
made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the
election of the returned candidate to be void.
(2) If in the opinion of the High Court, a returned
candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election
agent, of any corrupt practice but the High Court is satisfied--
(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at
the election by the candidate or his election agent, and every
such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders,
and without the consent, of the candidate or his election
agent;
****
(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all
reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt
practices at the election; and
(d) that in all other respects the election was free
from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any
of his agents.
(vii) Section 123 deals with corrupt practices and for the
purposes of this petition, Section 123(4) is relevant and the
same is extracted below:
(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or
by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his
election agent, of any statement of fact which is false,
- 83 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
and which he either believes to be false or does not
believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or
conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature,
or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement
reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that
candidate's election.
(viii) Section 125 of the Act, 1951 deals with promoting
enmity between classes in connection with election and reads
as follows:
125. Promoting enmity between classes in
connection with election.--Any person who in
connection with an election under this Act promotes or
attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, caste,
community or language, feelings of enmity or hatred,
between different classes of the citizens of India shall he
punishable, with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(ix). Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
mandate the form of affidavit to be filed at the time of
delivering the nomination paper. Such affidavit shall be in Form
26.
(x). Rule 23 of the Rules, 1961 deals with the issue of
postal ballot which discloses that a postal ballot comprises of
- 84 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
four parts namely a declaration Form 13A, a cover in Form 13B,
a large cover addressed to the Returning Officer in Form 13C
and instructions for the guidance of the elector in Form 13D.
(xi). The procedure for exercising the vote by a postal
ballot is found in Rule 24 of the Rules, 1961. A voter shall
enclose the ballot paper in the cover in Form 13B. He shall also
sign the declaration in Form 13A in the presence of or have his
signature attested by a stipendiary Magistrate or such other
officer as set out therein and thereafter place all of them in the
larger cover in Form 13C.
(xii). Rule 25 of the Rules, 1961 deals with assistance to
illiterate or infirm voters is as follows:
25. Assistance to illiterate or infirm voters.--
(1) If an elector is unable through illiteracy, blindness or
other physical infirmity to record his vote on a postal
ballot paper and sign the declaration, he shall take the
ballot paper, together with the declaration and the covers
received by him to an officer competent to attest his
signature under sub-rule (2) of rule 24 and request the
officer to record his vote and sign his declaration on his
behalf.
(2) Such officer shall thereupon mark the ballot
paper in accordance with the wishes of the elector in his
- 85 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
presence, sign the declaration on his behalf and complete
the appropriate certificate contained in Form 13A
(xiii). Rule 54A of the Rules, 1961 reads as follows:
54A. Counting of votes received by post.--(1)
The returning officer shall first deal with the postal ballot
papers in the manner hereinafter provided.
(2) No cover in Form 13C received by the
returning officer after the expiry of the time fixed in that
behalf shall be opened and no vote contained in any such
cover shall be counted.
(3) The other covers shall be opened one after
another and as each cover is opened, the returning officer
shall first scrutinise the declaration in Form 13A contained
therein.
(4) If the said declaration is not found, or has
not been duly signed and attested, or is otherwise
substantially defective, or if the serial number of the
ballot paper as entered in it differs from the serial number
endorsed on the cover in Form 13B, that cover shall not
be opened, and after making an appropriate endorsement
thereon, the returning officer shall reject the ballot paper
therein contained.
(5) Each cover so endorsed and the declaration
received with it shall be replaced in the cover in Form 13C
and all such covers in Form 13C shall be kept in a
separate packet which shall be sealed and on which shall
- 86 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
be recorded the name of the constituency, the date of
counting and a brief description of its content.
(6) The returning officer shall then place all the
declarations in Form 13A which he has found to be in
order in a separate packet which shall be sealed before
any cover in Form 13B is opened and on which shall be
recorded the particulars referred to in sub-rule (5).
(7) The covers in Form 13B not already dealt
with under the foregoing provisions of this rule shall then
be opened one after another and the returning officer
shall scrutinise each ballot paper and decide the validity
of the vote recorded thereon.
(8) A postal ballot paper shall be rejected--
(a) if it bears any mark (other than the mark to
record the vote) or writing by which the
elector can be identified; or
(aa) if no vote is recorded thereon; or
(b) if noted are given on it in favour of more
candidates than one; or
(c) if it is a spurious ballot paper; or
(d) if it is so damaged or mutilated that its
identity as a genuine ballot paper cannot be
established; or
(e) if it is not returned in the cover sent along
with it to the elector by the returning officer.
- 87 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(9) A vote recorded on a postal ballot paper shall
be rejected if the mark indicating the vote is placed on
the ballot paper in such manner as to make it doubtful to
which candidate the vote has been given.
(10) A vote recorded on a postal ballot paper shall
not be rejected merely on the ground that the mark
indicating the vote is indistinct or made more than once,
if the intention that the vote shall be for a particular
candidate clearly appears from the way the paper is
marked.
(11) The returning officer shall count all the valid
votes given by postal ballot in favour of each candidates,
record the total thereof in the result sheet in Form 20 and
announce the same.
(12) Thereafter, all the valid ballot papers and all
the rejected ballot papers shall be separately bundled and
kept together in a packet which shall be sealed with the
seals of the returning officer and of such of the
candidates, their election agent or counting agents as
may desire to affix their seals thereon and on the packet
so sealed shall be recorded the name of the constituency,
the date of counting and a brief description of its
contents.
(xiv) Rule 63 of the Rules, 1961 reads as follows:
63. Re-count of votes.-- (1) After the completion
of the counting, the returning officer shall record in the
- 88 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
result sheet in Form 20 the total number of votes polled
by each candidate and announce the same.
(2) After such announcement has been made, a
candidate or, in his absence, his election agent or any of
his counting agents may apply in writing to the returning
officer to re-count the votes either wholly or in part
stating the grounds on which the demands such re-count.
(3) On such an application being made the
returning officer shall decide the matter and may allow
the application in whole or in part or may reject it in toto
if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable.
(4) Every decision of the returning officer under
sub-rule (3) shall be in writing and contain the reasons
therefor.
(5) If the returning officer decides under sub-
rule (3) to allow a re-count of the votes either wholly or in
part,
He shall--
(a) do the re-counting in accordance with rule
54A, rule 56 or rule 56A, as the case may
be;
(b) amend the result sheet in Form 20 to the
extent necessary after such re-count; and
(c) announce the amendments so made by him.
(6) After the total number of votes polled by
each candidate has been announced under sub-rule (1) or
sub-rule (5), the returning officer shall complete and sign
- 89 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
the result sheet in Form 20 and no application for a re-
count shall be entertained thereafter:
Provided that no step under this sub-rule shall be
taken on the completion of the counting until the
candidates and election agents present at the completion
thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to
exercise the right conferred by sub-rule (2).
With the above prefatory references, the issues framed
by this Court are taken up for consideration.
ISSUE NOs.1 AND 4
13. In order to answer the issue No.1, it is first
necessary to decide issue No.4, whether the guidelines
contained in the handbook for Returning Officers has statutory
force and whether they have to be complied mandatorily. There
can be no dispute that these guidelines are issued by the
Election Commission of India in exercise of its statutory
functions under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. The
Apex Court in Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal [AIR 2010 SC
1227] where it was held as follows:
"There is no quarrel with the proposition that the
instructions contained in the Handbook for the Returning
Officers are issued by the Election Commission in exercise
- 90 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
of its statutory functions and are, therefore, binding on
the Returning Officers. They are obliged to follow them in
letter and spirit".
Following the above, in Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata
Ram Reddy Reddygari and Others [AIR 2014 SC 1290],
where it was held:
"It is a settled legal proposition that the
instructions contained in the handbook for Returning
Officer are issued by the Election Commission in exercise
of its statutory functions and are therefore, binding on the
Returning Officers. Such a view stands fortified by various
judgments of this Court in Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal,
AIR 2010 SC 1227; and Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar v.
Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite Patil,, AIR 2009 SC 2975.
Instruction 16 of the Handbook deals with cases as to
when the ballot is not to be rejected. The Returning
Officers are bound by the Rules and such instructions in
counting the ballot as has been done in this case".
14. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1
did not dispute the above position of law but contended that
the petitioner is bound to plead and prove how the non
verification of the postal ballots materially affected the results
of the election and how it prejudiced the petitioner. In view of
the above, issue No.4 is answered and it is held that the
- 91 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Handbook for Returning Officers are binding and have to be
mandatorily complied.
15. As regards issue No.1, the petitioner contended that
the Returning Officer was bound to re-verify the votes in view
of Guideline No.15 of the Hand Book for Returning Officers,
2009 and the respondent No.1 had contested the election
petition and had claimed that guidelines in hand books for
Returning Officers are directory and not mandatory. Therefore,
the parties and their counsel have understood that issue No.1 is
in respect of reverification of postal ballots and not recounting
of the postal ballots. Therefore, issue No.1 is recast as follows:
"Whether the petitioner proves that the Election
officer / Returning Officer has failed to comply with the
mandatory requirements in respect of reverification of
postal ballots?"
16. The petitioner has marked Ex.P4 which is the
Handbook for Candidates 2009 which has undergone many
changes and is not applicable to the general elections held in
the year 2023. As a matter of fact, Guideline No.15 relied upon
by the petitioner is nowhere found in Ex.P4. It is relevant to
- 92 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
note that the Election Commission of India has issued the
Handbook for Returning Officers 2023, which apparently is
followed by the Returning Officer since he deposed in his cross-
examination when a question was put by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the postal ballots have to be scrutinized
and counted by the Returning Officer alone, he answered that
"recent handbook permitted the Assistant Returning Officers to
count them (postal ballots)".
17. Guideline 15.25 of the Hand Book for Returning
Officers, 2023 reads as follows:
MANDATORY RE-COUNTING OF ALL POSTAL BALLOT
PAPERS:
Where the margin of victory is less than the
number of postal ballot papers rejected as invalid at the
time of counting, all the rejected Postal Ballot papers
shall be mandatorily re-verified by the Returning Officer
before declaration of result. Whenever, such re-
verification is done, the entire proceedings should be
video-graphed.
18. The above guideline casts a duty on the Returning
Officer to compulsorily re-verify the rejected postal ballots
where the margin of victory is less than the number of postal
- 93 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
ballots rejected. Ex.P30 is the register maintained by the
Returning Officer where the proceedings of the counting of
votes of 123 Sringeri assembly and declaration of results of the
election are recorded. This is admitted by the Returning Officer
who was examined as PW.2. A perusal of Ex.P30 shows that
after the postal ballots and the votes polled on EVM were
counted and after recording the total votes secured by each
candidate, he found that the returned candidate had secured
201 votes more than the petitioner and the rejected postal
ballots were 279. Therefore, in compliance of guideline 15.25,
he must have compulsorily verified all the rejected postal
ballots before declaring the result of the election even without
expecting a request therefor by the petitioner or his agent. It
may be that the petitioner did not suggest to the Returning
Officer in his cross-examination that he did not conduct the re-
verification of the postal ballots. However, this does not in any
way obliterate or dispense or absolve the Returning Officer of
his compulsory duty to re-verify the postal ballots. When the
law requires the Returning Officer to perform his duties in a
particular manner, he is bound to do so in that manner alone.
He has no discretion to overlook or ignore the guidelines issued
- 94 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
by the Election Commission of India or claim that it is not
mandatory. This inbuilt safeguard for re-verification of rejected
postal ballots when the victory margin is less than the rejected
votes, is in the light of the fact that votes cast on the EVM
cannot get invalidated and it is only the physical ballot that has
be checked to ensure that everything is in order.
19. The Returning Officer who was examined as PW.2
deposed that the counting of the postal ballots were done by
the Assistant Returning Officer and those votes which did not
have a declaration in Form 13 A duly signed by the voter or
duly attested by the officer concerned and where there was a
mismatch of the serial number of the ballot on the cover, were
rejected. This Court has not secured the rejected postal ballots
though I.A No.4/2024 is filed by the petitioner for inspection of
the postal ballots. The procedure for counting of postal ballots
is set out in the Handbook for Returning Officer, 2023 which is
largely in line with Rule 54A of the Rules, 1961 and reads as
follows:
15.14.6 All postal ballots received till the time fixed
for commencement of counting of votes shall be opened
- 95 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
for counting. For counting of the postal ballots following
points /stages must be scrupulously followed-
(a) All cover 'B' in Form 13-C containing postal
ballot papers, which were received in time by the
Returning Officer, are to be opened one after
another.
(b) On opening the cover "B" in Form 13C, two
documents are required to be found inside. The
first is -the declaration by the voter in Form 13-A
and the second is the inner "Cover A (Form 13-B)
containing the postal ballot paper. Before opening
the cover "A" containing the postal ballot paper, the
Returning Officer shall check the declaration (Form
13-A).
(c) He shall reject a postal ballot paper without
opening its inner cover (Form 13-B) in any of the
following cases:
(i) If the declaration in Form 13-A is not found
inside the cover "B" in Form 13-C;
(ii) the declaration has not been duly signed by
the elector or has not been duly attested by an
officer competent to do so or is otherwise
substantially defective,
(iii) If the serial number of the ballot paper
appearing on the declaration in Form 13A is
different from the serial number as endorsed on the
inner cover "A" in Form 13-B.
- 96 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
20. A word of caution is inserted in guideline 15.14.7 to
guide the Returning Officers while rejecting the postal ballots so
that votes that do not suffer from substantial defect are not
rejected.
15.14.7 A postal ballot paper shall not be rejected
merely on the ground that the attesting officer has not
put his seal on the declaration of the elector in Form 13-
A if the attesting officer has given all relevant details
with regard to his name and designation on that Form.
Further, a postal ballot paper shall also not be rejected
on the ground that the sender (elector) has not put his
signature on the outer cover "B" (Form 13 C) in which he
has returned the Postal Ballot Paper, if the identity of the
sender is verifiable on the basis of his declaration in
Form 13-A.
21. After the above, the postal ballots can be rejected
in the following manner:
15.14.8 All such rejected covers "A" in Form 13-B
containing the Postal Ballot Paper should be suitably
endorsed by the RO or the authorized ARO, and will be
back with the respective declarations in the larger cover
"B" in Form 13-C.
15.14.9 All such larger covers "B" will be kept in a
separate packet, which will be sealed by the RO/ARO
- 97 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
concerned and full particulars, such as the name of the
Constituency, the date of counting and a brief description
of the content will be noted thereon for identifying the
packet.
22. If the rejection of the postal ballots is by the
Assistant Returning Officer, then a duty is cast on the Returning
Officer to re-verify before they are put in the rejected category
and the same is set out in guideline 15.14.3 which reads as
follows:
15.14.3 All the cases of rejection of postal ballot on
account of defects in Declaration in Form-13A should be
re-verified by the Returning Officer before they are
actually put in the rejected category.
23. The Returning Officer in his deposition before the
Court stated that it was the ARO who counted the postal
ballots. (emphasis by Court). However, Ex.P30 does not show
that the Returning Officer had re-verified the rejected postal
ballots before they were actually put in the rejected category.
The Returning Officer deposed that no endorsement was made
on each cover in Form 13B about the reason for rejecting the
postal ballot but all the rejected votes were bundled and kept it
- 98 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
in a cover on which endorsements were made. (emphasis by
Court). Therefore, the assertion of the Returning Officer that
the postal ballots were rejected in the presence of the election
agents, cannot justify his default in not re-verifying the votes
and in not making appropriate endorsements on the cover in
Form 13B containing the ballot. There is no exception for this
mandatory compliance as no one can now decipher whether the
279 votes were rejected due to a substantial defect or not.
Therefore, as pleaded by the petitioner, this has materially
affected the results of the election. Under the circumstances, it
is held that the Returning Officer has failed in his duty to
comply the mandatory guideline prescribed for re-verifying the
postal ballot as mandated under Guideline 15.25 of the Hand
Book for Returning Officers, 2023.
ISSUE NOS.2 AND 3
24. While answering Issue Nos.1 and 4, I have
considered the lapse on the part of the Returning Officer in not
complying the procedure prescribed for rejecting the postal
ballots. A ballot paper is rejected only when the Returning
Officer or the Assistant Returning Officer complies with the
- 99 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
procedure prescribed in the Handbook and in Rule 54A of the
Rules, 1961.
25. Guideline 15.19 in the Handbook for Returning
Officer, 2023 deals with recount and reads as follows:
"RECOUNT:
15.19.1 Normally, there will be no question of
recount of votes recorded in the voting machines as every
vote recorded by the voting machines is a valid vote and
no dispute will arise as to its validity or otherwise. Despite
the necessity for recount being totally eliminated by the
use of voting machines, the provisions relating to recount
contained in Rule 63 of the Conduct of Elections Rules,
1961, still apply.
15.19.2 When the counting is complete and the
Final Result Sheet in Form 20 has been prepared, RO
should announce the total number of votes polled by each
candidate as entered in Form 20. Then RO should pause
for a minute or two. If during this period any candidate
or, in his absence, his election agent or any of the
counting agents, asks for a recount, RO should ascertain
from him the time required for making an application for
recount in writing. However, in the case, where the
counting places are in different locations, application for
re-count in respect of such can be presented before the
ARO supervising the counting in that Assembly Segment.
The concerned ARO may deal with application for re-count
- 100 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
with the approval of the RO as it would be difficult for
candidates/agents located in other counting locations to
reach the RO's location in time to make application for re-
count. A candidate has option to make request for recount
of polled ballot papers and/or polled evms of all or some
of the polling stations.
15.19.3 If RO consider that the time applied for is
reasonable, he shall allow it and announce the exact hour
and minute up to, which RO will wait for receiving the
written application for recount. RO must not sign the Final
Result Sheet in Form 20 until after the expiry of the time
so announced. If RO receives an application for recount,
he should consider the grounds urged and decide the
matter judiciously. RO may allow the application in whole
or in part if it is reasonable or may reject it if it appears to
be frivolous or unreasonable. But the right of a candidate
to demand a recount under Rule 63 does not mean that
recount can be granted for the mere asking. The party
demanding recount has to make out a, prima facie case,
which the counting was not accurate and recount is
necessary in the interest of justice. In every case, RO
should record a brief statement of reasons for the
decision and should give a speaking order. Ros decision
will be final.
26. Section 63 of Act, 1951 also provides for recounting
before the results are announced. However, an application
seeking recount should set out the reasons for seeking recount
- 101 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
and the discretion to allow such an application is with the
Returning Officer.
27. In this petition, Ex.P6 shows that a request was
made before the results were announced seeking a recount of
the postal ballots as there were some doubts regarding postal
ballots. Later, Ex.P5 was submitted stating that the election
officer had committed mistake while securing the postal ballots
resulting in rejection of 279 ballots and therefore claimed that
the rejected votes be included for counting.
28. Though PW.2 deposed that before rejecting the
request of the agent of the petitioner for recount, he had
declared the result of the winning candidate, he thereafter
claimed that he had orally declared the result, which is highly
objectionable. The Returning Officer who was supposed to
consider the request for recount deposed that the entries in
Ex.P30 regarding the rejection of the request for recounting
was made by his subordinates. This demonstrates that there
was no proper application of mind while considering the
application for recount.
- 102 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
29. An election petition is maintainable if any allegation
is made about the improper reception, refusal or rejection of
any vote or the reception of any vote which is void as provided
under Section 101(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, 1951. As stated above,
a vote can be termed "rejected" only when the procedure
prescribed in Rule 54A of the Rules, 1961, is complied.
Therefore, it is held that the endorsement issued by the
Returning Officer dated 13.05.2023 rejecting the request of the
election agent of the petitioner is not justified and the results of
the election was wrongly declared without considering the
request of the petitioner for a recount.
30. As regards the contention of the learned Senior
counsel for the respondent No.1 that recounting cannot be
ordered as a matter of course, unless it is shown how it has
materially affected the results of the election, it is relevant to
note that the Returning Officer has committed a colossal
mistake in not re-verifying the postal ballots that were rejected
by the Assistant Returning Officer. He has failed to re-verify the
rejected postal ballots even after noticing the victory margin
was less than the postal ballots rejected. There can be no
quarrel over the proposition of law expounded by the Hon'ble
- 103 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Supreme Court in P.H.Pujar, Dharmin Bai Kashyap, Beliram
Bhalaik, Suresh Prasad Yadav. R.Narayanan and other
judgments in the same vein referred supra, that there should
be pleadings to show that rejection of the request for re-count
the postal ballots materially affected the result of the election.
However, if the election petition is seen, the petitioner has
alleged in para No.7 as follows:
"It is submitted that during the process of counting
the votes on the date of counting (13-05-23) the
petitioner noticed several non compliance with respect to
consideration of postal ballot about absentee voters in the
category of senior citizens and persons with disabilities."
He further pleaded in para No.10 as follows:
"However, despite the petitioner raising objections
regarding the counting of postal ballot votes at the time
of counting of votes and filing application for recounting,
the returning officer failed to re-verify the votes and
issued an endorsement refusing for recounting".
At para No.17 he pleaded as follows:
"It is submitted that if the request to recount the
postal ballot was allowed by the returning officer and
recounting the postal ballot were made, it would have
brought in material changes in the election".
- 104 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Therefore, it cannot be said that there are no pleadings seeking
for a recount of the postal ballot. It would have been more
appropriate if the petitioner had mentioned what were the
irregularities he found while counting the postal ballots. This
lacuna is cured as the petitioner had furnished Ex.P6 along with
the election petition, which showed that the election agent of
the petitioner had expressed doubt about the counting of the
postal ballots. Once Ex.P6 was filed along with the election
petition, that became part of the pleading. The doubt expressed
by the election agent of the petitioner stood established by the
admissions made by the Returning Officer, who was examined
as PW.2, which are discussed while answering issues 1 and 4.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had
made out a case for recounting all the postal ballots.
ISSUE NOS.5 AND 6:
31. An election petition, particularly when it is based on
the allegation of corrupt practices indulged in by the returned
candidate, has to strictly conform to the requirements of
Section 83 of the Act, 1951. The petitioner is not only bound to
give a concise statement of the allegation made but also the
- 105 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
material particulars. He is also bound to file an affidavit as
mandated in proviso to Section 83 of the Act, 1951 and as
prescribed in Rule 94A of the Rules, 1961. In this regard, it is
profitable to refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in Samant
N.Balakrishna (supra) and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi
(supra). The petitioner has vaguely pleaded that the
respondent No.1 has used black money for election purposes
and thus committed election mal practice but has not given any
particulars as to how, when and where black money was used
or spent or how the petitioner came to the conclusion that
black money was used for the purpose of election. He has not
even mentioned how he came to the conclusion that the
respondent No.1 had overspent for the election. Even in his
evidence, he did not mention how, when and where black
money was used and how, when and where he had overspent.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried
to contend that the respondent No.1 had enormous sums of
black money which is evident from the fact that a huge coffee
estate named Shaban Ramzan, a partnership firm, was deep in
debt and that the wife and son of respondent No.1 were
inducted in the firm as partners, who cleared the debt running
- 106 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
into hundreds of crores of Rupees. He contended that the
respondent No.1 had not disclosed the acquisition of
M/s.Shaban Ramzan and how his wife and son managed to
clear off the huge loan. He therefore contended that this shows
that respondent No.1 had huge black money which he pumped
into the election of Sringeri Assembly Constituency - 123 in the
year 2023. Unfortunately, these are simply not sufficient to
prove a grave allegation of using black money or overspending
for the elections. An election petition on the ground of corrupt
practice may result in a drastic order declaring the result of a
returned candidate as void. Therefore, the petitioner is bound
to plead all material particulars as to what made him believe
that the respondent No.1 had used black money or had
overspent and also substantiate it by adducing acceptable
evidence. Sadly, the petitioner has failed in both and therefore,
he has failed to prove these allegations.
ISSUE NO.7:
32. As stated earlier, an election petition may result in
drastic consequences and therefore the petitioner is bound to
plead when, where, how and who made the hate speeches or
- 107 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
speeches that demeaned his character which affected the
voters in voting against the petitioner. It is no doubt true that
when a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the
consent of the respondent No.1 or his election agent publishes
any statement which is false and which he either believes to be
false or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal
character or conduct of any candidate to prejudice the prospect
of that candidates election is a corrupt practice as defined
under Section 123 of the Act, 1951. However, the petitioner
who was aware of what those hate speeches were and who
made them and when and where they were made, was bound
to plead them in the petition, so that the same could be
controverted by the respondent No.1. Though the petitioner
claimed before Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.11013/2024 that he could amend the election petition to
furnish particulars, the petitioner failed to do so. The petitioner
instead furnished some evidence which is patchy and did not
establish that these were done by the respondent No.1 or his
election agent or someone with the consent of the respondent
No.1 or his agent. Therefore this issue has to be held against
the petitioner.
- 108 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
ISSUE NO.8:
33. As regards this issue too, the petitioner has failed to
plead what were the false promises made by respondent No.1
during the elections. He also failed to adduce evidence to
demonstrate what were the false promises. On the contrary
PW.1 in his cross examination stated that the false promises
were nothing but the election manifesto of the Congress party
made prior to the code of conduct coming into force. Therefore,
this issue too will have to be held against the petitioner.
ISSUE NOS.9, 10 AND 11:
34. These issues relate to the allegation that the
respondent No.1 had indulged in spree of paid news, paid
campaign and opinion to influence the mind of the voters, that
he made truce with other candidates in the fray to divide the
votes, that 2000 to 3000 duplicate voters were registered in
multiple areas of the constituency who cast their votes in
favour of respondent No.1. Sadly, the petitioner has failed to
plead this and furnish material particulars in the election
petition. If he had furnished the material particulars, the
respondent No.1 would have suitably replied to it. The
- 109 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
petitioner also did not furnish any evidence on these
allegations. Therefore, without any hesitation, it can be held
that the petitioner failed to prove the above issues.
ISSUE NO.12:
35. In view of the answers to issue Nos.5 to 11, this
issue is held in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent
No.1 and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.13:
36. As regards issue No.13, the petitioner was
examined as PW.1 and at the time of marking Ex.P9, it was
opposed by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1.
This objection regarding marking was considered and Ex.P9
which was already marked as a true copy was treated as a
certified copy. However, in the course of cross examination,
nothing is brought on record to disbelieve the veracity of Ex.P9.
The marking of Ex.P10 was also opposed on the ground that it
was incomplete and the Court noticed the same on 21.01.2025
that page No.14 of Ex.P10 is not available. Exs.P11 to P29 were
marked subject to objections but nothing is extracted from
PW.1 as to how those documents cannot be received in
- 110 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
evidence or that they are inadmissible. Ex.P30 was marked
through PW.2, who is the Returning Officer but was objected by
the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 on the
ground that it was not summoned by the Court but it was
forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner. During cross-
examination of PW.2, it is not disputed by the learned Senior
counsel for the respondent No.1 that Ex.P30 was the
proceedings book maintained by the Returning Officer. PW.3 is
the witness at whose instance, Ex.P44 was marked but it was
objected on the ground that the same was not a certified copy.
Likewise, the photograph at Ex.P45 was marked subject to
objection as the witness was not the author of the said
document. When PW.3 had received the photograph at Ex.P45
on his mobile and he had marked the said photograph along
with the prescribed certificate, the objection to mark the said
document on the ground that he was not the author of the
document is without any basis. In the cross-examination of this
witness, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the certificate. Hence,
issue No.13 is held against the respondent No.1 and in favour
of the petitioner.
- 111 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
ISSUE NO.14:
37. As regards Issue No.14, this issue is framed in view
of the contention of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner has
failed to plead which provision of Section 100 of the Act, 1951
is violated and the grounds urged in the election petition do not
constitute any violation of any provision contained in Section
100 of the Act, 1951. In view of the findings recorded on issue
Nos.2 and 3, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was
entitled to file an election petition on the ground that there was
an improper rejection of the postal ballots which is a ground
available to the petitioner under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the
Act, 1951.
ISSUE NOS.15 AND 17:
38. In view of the answers to Issue Nos.1 to 4, though
the declaration of the result of the elections of the respondent
No.1 can be declared as void but yet in view of the admission
of PW.1 that the postal ballots were counted in the presence of
his election agents, it is not proper to hold that the election of
the respondent No.1 is void and instead it is appropriate to
direct a re-verification of the rejected 279 postal ballots and
- 112 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
recounting of all the postal ballots. Hence, issue Nos.15 and 17
are answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.16:
39. In view of the answers to issue Nos.5 to 11, this
issue is held against the petitioner and it is held that the
election of the respondent No.1 cannot be declared as void in
view of the corrupt practices alleged by the petitioner.
ISSUE NO.18:
40. The petitioner has established that 279 postal
ballots were improperly rejected as no endorsements were
made by the Returning Officer indicating the reason for
rejection. The election agent of the petitioner had also
expressed doubts about the manner of counting the postal
ballots. The Returning Officer who was examined as PW.2
admitted various lapses which are extracted while answering
Issue Nos.2 and 3. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for
the alternative relief of re-counting of postal ballots of senior
citizens who are 80+ years old and persons with disabilities and
the Returning Officer issue a fresh declaration if there is any
change in the number of votes secured by the petitioner /
- 113 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
respondent No.1. It is made clear that if there is no change in
the number of votes secured, the earlier declaration issued by
the Returning Officer shall remain.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Election Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The Returning Officer is directed to re-verify
SPONSORED
279 postal ballots that were rejected. While re-
verifying the 279 rejected postal ballots, he
shall strictly comply with guideline 15.14.7 of
the Hand Book for Returning Officer, 2023 and
also ascertain whether the rejected postal
ballots suffered from any substantial defect.
After re-verification as stated above, if any
rejected votes do not suffer from any
substantial defect, they shall be included in
recounting and the Returning Officer shall
recount all the postal ballots and issue a fresh
declaration only if there is any change in the
– 114 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
number of votes secured by the petitioner or
respondent No.1.
(iii) This shall be complied within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Order.
(iv) I.A. No.4/2024, which is filed by the petitioner
for securing the postal ballots boxes, does not
survive for consideration and the same is
disposed off.
(iv) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this
order to the following forthwith through speed
post as well as email:
(a) Secretary, Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New
Delhi-110001.
(b) Chief Electoral Officer, Government of
Karnataka, Nirvachana Nilaya, Maharani’s
College Circle, Sheshadri Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
(c) The District Election Officer,
Chikkamagaluru District, Chikkamagalur.
– 115 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
(d) The Returning Officer, Sringeri, 123
Assembly Constituency, Chikkamagaluru
District.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER
1 PW.1 : SRI D.N.JEEVARAJA
2 PW.2 : SRI VEDAMURTHY
3 PW.3 : SRI H.K. DINESH
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER
Ex-P1 Copy of final result sheet in Form No.20 in Sringeri
Assembly Constituency.
– 116 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Ex-P1(a) Signature of PW 2 Sri. Vedamurthy, Returning Officer
which is in Form No.20.
Ex-P2 Copy of declaration of result of returning candidate in
Form No. 21C
Ex-P3 Copy of return of Election in Form No.21E
Ex-P4 Copy of handbook for candidates issued by Election
Commission of India.
Ex-P4(a) Para No.3.10 of Chapter 11 of copy of the Hand Book
for candidate.
Ex-P4(b) Relevant guidelines of Chapter 11 of copy of the hand
book for candidate.
Ex-P4(c) Chapter 16 of the copy of Hand book for candidates.
Ex-P4(d) Relevant Portion at guideline No.21 to Chapter 16 of
copy of Hand book of candidate.
Ex-P4(e) Guideline No.21.1 of the Chapter 16 of copy of Hand
book for candidate.
Ex-P5 Copy of acknowledgment dated 13.05.2023 of the
application in Kannada given by the petitioner agent to
the Returning Officer.
Ex-P5(a) Typed copy of Ex-P5.
Ex-P5(b) Translated copy of Ex-P5.
Ex-P6 Original acknowledgment of objection raised by the
petitioner agent before Returning Officer.
Ex-P7 Endorsement dated 13.05.2023 issued by Returning
Officer.
Ex-P7(a) Translated copy of Ex-P7.
Ex-P8 Original Certificate of security deposit produced while
filing this Election petition.
– 117 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Ex-P9 Certified copy of affidavit of the respondent No.1 for the
year 2013.
Ex-P9(a) English version of Ex-P9.
Ex-P10 Certified copy of affidavit of the respondent No.1 in
respect of election held in 2018.
Ex-P10(a) English version of Ex-P10.
Ex-P11 Affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 to the Hon’ble
Lokayukta during the year 2019-2020.
Ex-P11(a) Covering Letter of Ex-P11.
Ex-P11(b) Typed copy of Ex-P11.
Ex-P12 List of property submitted by Respondent No.1 to
Hon’ble Lokayukta.
Ex-P12(a) Covering Letter of Ex-P12.
Ex-P13 Declaration filed by Respondent No.1 to Hon’ble
Lokayukta in respect of assets & liabilities for the year
2020-2021.
Ex-P13(a) Covering Letter of Ex-P13
Ex-P14 Declaration is filed by Respondent No.1 to Hon’ble
Lokayukta with regard to assets & liabilities for the year
2021-2022.
Ex-P14(a) Covering Letter of Ex-P14
Ex-P15 Affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 during the election
held in the year 2023 Sringeri Assembly Constituency.
Ex-P16 English version of Ex-P15.
Ex-P17 Encumbrance certificate in respect of properties held by
R1 & his family members.
Ex-P17(a) English version of Ex-P17.
– 118 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Ex-P18 Declaration filed by the R1 for having deposited title
deeds of shaban Ramzan Estate.
Ex-P19 Copy of the title deed deposited in respect of
supplementary memorandum submitted to the Bank.
Ex-P19(a) Copy of GPA submitted by R1 to the bank along with
supplementary memorandum of deposit of title deeds.
Ex-P20 Copy of deed of admission & retirement & reconstitution
of the firm where respondent No.1’s wife and son are
the partners.
Ex-P20(a) A copy of acknowledgment receipt of the documents by
registrar of to firm.
Ex-P20(b) Copy of Form-V notice of reconstitution of firm.
Ex-P21 Copy of deed discharge issued by standard Chartered
Bank.
Ex-P21(a) Typed Version of Ex-P21
Ex-P22 Copy of release deed issued by Bank of Baroda in favour
of Wife of R1.
Ex-P23 Copy of deed of release issued by Karnataka Bank in
favour of Shaban Ramzan firm of wife of respondent
No.1
Ex-P24 Copy of the memorandum of deposit of title deeds
executed in favour of Canara Bank by the firm
represented by Wife of Respondent No.1 & Children.
Ex-P25 Copy of GPA executed by son of Respondent No.1 in
favour of Wife of Respondent No.1.
Ex-P26 Copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds by the
family of Respondent No.1 executed in favour of Canara
Bank Chikkamagaluru.
Ex-P27 Copy of the deed of admission retirement and
reconstitution of firm M/s. Shaban Ramzan firm in which
– 119 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
wife of respondent No.1 was inducted as partner.
Ex-P27(a) Copy of Form-VI submitted to registrar of firms.
Ex-P27(b) Copy of Form-B memorandum of acknowledgment of
documents received.
Ex-P27(c) Copy of letter issued by the RTC officer for having
supplied copies of documents.
Ex-P28 Certified copy of FIR registered against followers of
respondent No.1 for violation of model code of conduct.
Ex-P29 Certified copy of judgment in O.S No.6098/2013 &
obtained injunction against making any defamatory
statement against petitioner.
Ex-P30 Register of proceedings of counting process of Election
to 123 Sringeri Assembly Constituency-2023.
Ex-P30(a) Page No.13 of Register of proceedings pertaining to the
postal ballots.
Ex-P30(b) Inserted the entries at page No.13 of Register of
proceedings.
Ex-P30(c) Page No.18 of Register of proceedings is pertaining to
military ballot papers which were received through
online.
Ex-P30(d) Page Nos.58 to 63 of Register of proceedings pertaining
to postal ballots (all three categories).
Ex-P30(e) Page No.64 of Register of proceedings mentioned that
EVM poll counting.
Ex-P30(f) Page Nos.65-67 of Register of proceedings pertaining to
rejection of request made by the petitioner agent for re-
counting by the Returning Officer & that the same are
mentioned in Register of proceedings.
Ex-P30(g) The relevant portion at page No.67 of Register of
– 120 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
proceedings pertaining to declaration of election.
Ex-P31 Original copy of application given by petitioner agent to
the Returning officer in Kannada language.
Ex-P32 Original copy of application given by petitioner agent to
the Returning officer in English language.
Ex-P33 Original copy of endorsement dated 13.5.2023 issued by
the Returning officer to the election agent for having
rejected the request Mr. Vedamurthy.
Ex-P33(a) Signature of PW.2, which is in the copy of endorsement
dated 13.5.2023 issued by Returning Officer to the
election agent.
Ex-P34 Original copy of complaint dated 15.04.2023 submitted
to the Returning Officer by the President of BJP Sri B.S.
Satish.
Ex-P34(a) Signature of the PW-2 (Returning Officer) for having
received the complaint dated 15.04.2023.
Ex-P34(b) Copy of pamphlet.
Ex-P34(c) Copy of pamphlet.
Ex-P35 Original copy of endorsement dated 15.04.2023 issued
by Returning officer to Executive Officer, Koppa.
Ex-P35(a) Signature of PW-2 which is in endorsement dated
15.04.2023 issued by Returning Officer to Executive
Officer, Koppa.
Ex-P36 Original copy of complaint dated 3.5.2023 submitted to
the Returning officer by the President of B.J.P. N.R. Pura
Sri. Arun Kumar H. M.
Ex-P36(a) Signature of PW2 for having received complaint dated
3.5.2023
Ex-P36(b) Enclosure annexed to the complaint dated 3.5.2023.
– 121 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Ex-P37 Original copy of letter dated 3.5.2023 forwarded to the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Koppa Taluk by the
Returning Officer.
Ex-P37(a) Signature of PW2 which is in letter dated 3.5.2023
forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Koppa Taluk by the Returning Officer.
Ex-P38 Original copy of letter dated 4.5.2023 forwarded to the
Dy. SP Koppa Taluk by the Returning Officer.
Ex-P38(a) Signature of PW.2 which is in letter forwarded to the Dy.
SP Koppa Taluk by the Returning Officer.
Ex-P39 Original copy of the Complaint dated 3.5.2023
addressed to the Returning Officer by Mr. T.S. Umesh
President of BJP, Sringeri.
Ex-P39(a) Signature of PW.2 (Returning Officer) for having
received complaint dated 3.5.2023.
Ex-P39(b) Copy of whatsapp message in respect of defamatory
materials against the petitioner, annexed to the
complaint dated 3.5.2023
Ex-P40 Original copy of another letter dated 13.5.2023 sent by
the Returning officer to the Dy. SP Koppa referring to all
previous complaints.
Ex-P40(a) Signature of PW2 (Returning Officer) which is in letter
dated 13.5.2023 sent by the Returning Officer
Ex-P41 Original copy of letter dated 13.5.2023 submitted by Mr.
Ramaswamy Election agent of petitioner to the
Returning Officer to take action against the polling
officer.
Ex-P42 Original copy of letter dated 13.5.2023, by Returning
officer issuing notice to one Mr. Venkatesh B.R., Polling
Officer for furnishing explanation.
Ex-P43 Original copy of complaint dated 13.5.2023 addressed
– 122 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
to the Returning Officer alleging election malpractice,
submitted by Mr. S.N. Ramaswamy, Election agent of
petitioner.
Ex-P43(a) Signature of PW2 (Returning Officer) for having received
complaint dated 13.5.2023 submitted by Mr.S.N.
Ramaswamy Election agent of petitioner.
Ex-P44 Copy of complaint dated 30.11.2022 given by PW.3 Sri
H.K. Dinesh to the Hon’ble Lokayuktha as against
respondent No.1 Sri T.D. Rajegowda.
Ex-P45 Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(a) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(b) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(c) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(d) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(e) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(f) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(g) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(h) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(i) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
– 123 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Phone.
Ex-P45(j) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(k) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(l) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(m) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(n) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(o) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(p) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(q) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(r) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(s) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(t) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(u) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(v) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P45(w) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
– 124 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
Ex-P45(x) Photo received by PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh in his Mobile
Phone.
Ex-P46 All translation copies of Ex-P45, Ex-P45(a) to Ex-P45(x).
Ex-P47 Copy of transcript of the 1st video which is in pen drive.
Ex-P47(a) Copy of transcript of the 2nd video which is in pen drive.
Ex-P47(b) Copy of transcript of the 3rd video which is in pen drive.
Ex-P47(c) Copy of transcript of the 4th video which is in pen drive.
Ex-P47(d) Copy of transcript of the 5th video which is in pen drive.
Ex-P47(e) Copy of transcript of the 6th video which is in pen drive.
Ex-P47(f) Copy of transcript of the 7th video which is in pen drive.
Ex-P48 Certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex-P48(a) Signature of PW3 Sri H.K. Dinesh which is in certificate
v/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex-P49 Complaint lodged by PW3-H.K. Dinesh before
Lokayuktha Police dated 30.11.2022.
Ex-P49(a) Signature of PW3-H.K. Dinesh affixed to the complaint.
Ex-P50 Copy of Form No.1 (Complaint) given by PW3-H.K.
Dinesh before Lokayuktha Police dated 30.11.2022.
Ex-50(a) Signature of PW3-H.K.Dinesh on Form No.1 (Compliant)
dated 30.11.2022.
Ex.P51 Endorsement issued by Public Information Officer and
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta Police,
Chikkamagaluru dated 19.02.2025.
LIST OF OBJECTS MARKED : M.O. NO.1
– 125 –
NC: 2026:KHC:18470
EP No. 20 of 2023
HC-KAR
WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 :
NIL
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1:
Ex.D1
Memo for permission to appear through Video
conference filed by Advocate for petitioner
Ex.D1(a)
Signature of petitioner
(PW-1) Sri. D.N. Jeevaraja which is in memo for
permission filed by petitioner to appear through Video
conference
Ex.D2
Affidavit of Form No.25 (Rule 94-A) filed by Advocate
for petitioner
Ex.D2(a)
Signature of petitioner
(PW-1) Sri. D.N. Jeevaraja which is in the affidavit of
Form No.25Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
