Mohan vs State Of Karnataka & Others

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"1. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the impugned order which is produced at annexure-a, wherein the petitioner nomination was rejected on the ground that  in so far the petitioner is concerned.

Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner as nomination and permit him to contesting the post of director ensuing election in so far as petitioner is concerned.

Such other direction or orders or Writ as the factual situation deemed fit and proper be passed."

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The petitioner had filed his nomination to the election that is scheduled to be held on 23.07.2023 to the post of Director of the 4th respondent - Society. Petitioner's nomination was rejected by the 3rd respondent - Returning Officer vide Annexure - A on the ground that the petitioner had not mentioned the category under which he intends to contest. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

Learned AGA who was directed to take notice to the respondent has produced the original of the nomination form submitted by the petitioner and perusal of the same would go to show that in the first portion of the said form, the petitioner has left the column relating to the category under which he intends to contest the election blank. However, in the second portion of the form which relates to the declaration to be made by the candidate, he has clearly stated that he intends to contest from schedule caste category. The 2nd respondent authority has issued election guidelines in the year 2016 and clause 21 of the said guidelines clearly states that nomination should not be rejected if the defect in the application is negligible. In the present case, the petitioner has clearly mentioned in his declaration that he intends to contest from schedule caste category and therefore, the 3rd respondent was not justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the nomination of the petitioner.

Under the circumstances, the said order cannot be sustained. Accordingly the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure - A passed by 3rd respondent is quashed and the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's nomination and permit him to contest in the election to the post of Director of the 4th respondent-Society, if he is otherwise eligible.