Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1445 (KAR)

Venkataraitiegowda R. K. v. Election Officer

2013-12-27

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a member of the State Vokkaligara Sangha (for short 'Sangha'). A notification was issued by the State Election Officer of the Sangha, on 01.10.2013, for conducting election to the Executive Committee of the Sangha. The State Election Officer appointed the Returning Officers, on 07.11.2013, to various Centers. A notification dated 28.11.2013 was issued by the respondent No.2 i.e., the Election Officer, Hassan District, for conducting election to the Executive Committee of the Sangha from Hassan District. Out of 35 seats for the Executive Committee of the Sangha, Hassan District has three seats. 2. The petitioner submitted his nomination form on 16.12.2013 and opted for allotment of a symbol out of three symbols i.e., 'Cow', 'Twin Coconut Trees', and 'Peacock'. The petitioner was allotted the symbol 'Cow'. Having noticed that another candidate Sri. G.L. Manjunatha Swamy, contesting from Hassan District, has been allotted the symbol 'Seeme Cow' and apprehending that the allotment of similar type of symbols would lead to confusion and anomalies in the mind of the voters, petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.12.2013, requesting the 2nd respondent, to allot him the symbol - 'Peacock'. The 2nd respondent issued an endorsement dated 21.12.2013, as at Annexure-G, declining to allot the symbol 'Peacock', on the ground that the same has already been allotted on 20.12.2013 to one Sri. J.M. Shivakumar and the final list of candidates has been announced and the election process has commenced. Assailing the said endorsement, this writ petition was filed on 26.12.2013. 3. Sri Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned advocate contended that the endorsement vide Annexure-G issued by the 2nd respondent is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that the 2nd respondent has failed to note that the petitioner was allotted the symbol of 'Cow' and another candidate Sri G.L. Manjunatha Swamy has been allotted the symbol 'Seeme Cow' and the same would lead to confusion and anomalies and as such, the genuine request of the petitioner could not have been refused. Learned counsel further submitted that in Bangalore City, the Returning Officer has only allotted serial numbers and in Hassan District, symbols have been allotted and thereby, there is anomaly and whole election process and the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent being discriminatory, warrants interference. Learned counsel further submitted that in Bangalore City, the Returning Officer has only allotted serial numbers and in Hassan District, symbols have been allotted and thereby, there is anomaly and whole election process and the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent being discriminatory, warrants interference. Learned counsel contended that the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 being highly unjust and illegal, if not set aside, it would make the petitioner suffer injustice. 4. The facts, which are not in dispute are, that a notification dated 01.10.2013 was issued by the 1st respondent for conducing election to the Executive Committee of the Sangria. Respondent No.2, being the Election Officer, Hassan District, issued and published the 'calendar of events' on 28.11.2013. Petitioner filed his nomination form on 16.12 2013 and opted for allotment of any one symbol out of three symbols viz., Cow, Twin Coconut Trees, or Peacock, in the order on priority. The last date for withdrawal of nominations being over and the final list of candidates having been prepared and published with their respective election symbols, on 20.12.2013, the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.12.2013 and sought allotment of election symbol 'Peacock', which has been allotted on 20.12.2013 in favour of J.M. Shivakumar. In the notification issued publishing the calendar of events on 28.11.2013, it has been notified as follows Language 5. Petitioner's nomination having been accepted and he having been allotted with the symbol of 'Cow', being his first choice, he cannot have any grievance with regard to the non-allotment of symbol 'Peacock', which was not his first choice, but the third, in the order of priority. The petitioner despite knowing that there was a symbol 'Seeme Cow', exercised the first option for allotment of symbol 'Cow'. After the symbol 'Peacock' having been allotted in favour of another candidate J.M.Shivakumar, the request of the petitioner for allotment of symbol 'Peacock' could not have been considered. 6. Whether the Election Officer is justified in rejecting the request made for allotment of an alternate symbol after the scrutiny and publication of final list of candidates, is not a matter to be decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The grievance, if any,, can be the subject matter in an election petition. 7. In the case of S.T. Muttusamy vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 5/2, the question involved was a dispute between two candidates claiming official symbol of a political party. The grievance, if any,, can be the subject matter in an election petition. 7. In the case of S.T. Muttusamy vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 5/2, the question involved was a dispute between two candidates claiming official symbol of a political party. After noticing the decision in the case of N.P. Ponnusamy vs. Returning Officer, Namakkai Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64 , it has been held that there is hardly any room for Courts to entertain the applications under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matters relating to elections. 8. In the instant case, the symbol 'Peacock' having been allotted in favour of J.M. Shivakumar and the petitioner having been allotted the symbol of his first choice 'Cow' to contest with that symbol, his grievance as to the alleged confusion and anomalies in the mind of the voters on account of the allotment of the symbol 'Seeme Cow' in favour of another candidate G.L. Manjunatha Swamy will have to be agitated in an election petition, if need be, as has been held in the case of S.T. Muttusamy (supra). 9. In the case of K.G. Nanjundaswamy vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, ILR 1992 Karr.ataka 979, the Full Bench has succinctly pointed out that in all cases where a specific remedy by way of election petition is available, normally that remedy should be resorted to. 10. In the circumstances, interference with the election process, at this stage is wholly unwarranted, in view of the factual position, noticed supra and also the election having been scheduled to be held on 05.01.2014. In the result, the writ petition is rejected However, if the election is vitiated, it is open to the petitioner to file an election petition and seek relief, if need be. No costs.