Case: MUNIRAJU GOWDA P. M Vs. MUNIRATHNA

3. In the elections held to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly on 28.05.2018, the first respondent was declared elected from Constituency No.154, namely Rajarajeshwari Nagar.4. The petitioner herein challenged the election of the first respondent by way of an election petition in E.P.No.11 of 2018 before the High Court of Karnataka. The election petition was filed on 13.07.2018. After service of notice, the returned candidate who is the first respondent herein filed three interlocutory applications in I.A. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 2019, praying respectively for:-(i) Striking out the pleadings in paragraphs 8-30;(ii) Rejection of the election petition on the ground of lack of substratum; and(iii) Striking out prayer (c) in the election petition.5. The petitioner herein (the election petitioner) also filed two interlocutory applications in I.A. Nos. 1 & 4 of 2020, praying for:-(i) Amendment of the election petition by incorporating additional pleadings; and(ii) Leave to produce copies of 8 documents.6. By a common order passed on 20.03.2020, the High Court(i) partly allowed I.A.No.1 of 2020 filed by the election Petitioner;(ii) fully allowed I.A. No.4 of 2020 filed by the election petitioner ;(iii) rejected I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2019 filed by the first respondent; and(iv) allowed I.A. No.4 of 2019 filed by the first respondent for striking out prayer (c) in the election petition.7. Aggrieved by that portion of the order of the High Court:-(i) Allowing I.A. No.4 of 2019 filed by the returned candidate namely the first respondent and striking out prayer (c) in the election petition; and(ii) Partially disallowing I.A. No.1 of 2020 filed by himself for introducing additional pleadings with reference to the substratum contemplated in section 101(b) of the Act,the election petitioner has come up with the above Special Leave Petitions.

Reasoning:
11. There can be no quarrel about the fact that as on date, the grant of relief to the petitioner herein in terms of prayer (a) is only academic. This is for the reason that instead of the High Court setting aside the election of the first respondent, the Speaker himself has disqualified the first respondent, albeit on a different ground and the disqualification has been upheld by this Court during the pendency of the election petition.Technically, the learned Senior Counsel is right, since the involvement of a person in corrupt practices, in an election, does not get washed away, by his subsequent resignation.It appears that when the results were announced, the petitioner was declared to have secured 82,572 votes, while the first respondent was declared to have secured 1,08,064 votes. Therefore, in terms of Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act) the election petitioner should satisfy:-(i) that he received a majority of the valid votes; or(ii) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices, he would have obtained a majority of the valid votes.14. As observed by the High Court, pleadings necessary for the High Court to form an opinion in terms of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 101 of the Act were not there in the election petition. Under Section 83(1)(a) of the Act, an election petition should contain a concise statement of material facts. What constitutes material facts would depend upon the ground on which the election of a returned candidate is challenged. Several grounds are enumerated in Section 100(1) of the Act and pleading of material facts co-relatable to the grounds set out in Section 100(1), forms the bedrock of an election petition.15. In the election petition, as it was originally filed, there was no averment of material facts traceable to the ingredients incorporated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 101. This is why the first respondent herein made the first strike by moving an application in I.A.No.4 of 2019 for striking out prayer (c). Actually, I.A.No.4 of 2019 was filed by the first respondent herein on 11.10.2019, pointing out that there are no necessary pleadings with reference to Section 101.16. It is only after two months of the first respondent filing I.A. No.4 of 2019 that the petitioner herein moved an application in I.A.No.1 of 2020 for amendment of the pleadings by incorporating one paragraph, after the existing para 30 of the election petition. To be precise I.A. No.1 of 2020 was filed on 11.02.2020 seeking to incorporate one paragaraph as para 30(a) in the original election petition. This proposed additional paragraph comprised of two parts, one relating the alleged corrupt practices and the other relating to the requirements of section 101 (b) of the Act. By the order impugned herein, the High Court allowed the amendment to the extent of first part of para 30(a), but rejected the amendment as regards the second part which relates to the ingredients of section 101 (b). As rightly pointed out by the High Court, the election petitioner cannot be allowed to suddenly wake up to the reality of lack of pleading of material facts, relating to his rights in terms of section 101 after more than 18 months of the filing of the election petition. The same is also barred by limitation. Therefore, the High Court did the right thing in disallowing the second part of the proposed para 30 (a) and in striking off prayer (c).17. In any case, the second part of paragraph 30 (a) sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, does not satisfy the requirement of pleading of material facts, necessary for the High Court to form an opinion in terms of Clause (a) or (b) of Section 101.18. Once it is found that neither the original election petition nor the amended election petition contains any pleading of material facts which would enable the High Court to form an opinion in terms of Section 101, there was no alternative for the High Court but to strike off prayer (c).19. There is one more reason why the petitioner cannot succeed. In the elections in question, there were 14 candidates in the fray, including the petitioner herein and the first respondent. In Viswanath Reddy vs. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda AIR 1969 SC 604  , the Constitution Bench of this Court treated the votes polled in favour of the returned candidate as thrown away votes, on the ground that he was disqualified from contesting and that the election petitioner was entitled to be declared elected, in view of the fact that there was no other contesting candidate. But the Constitution Bench cautioned that the rule for the exclusion of the votes secured by corrupt practices by the returned candidate in the computation of the total votes and the consequential declaration of the candidate who secured the next highest number of votes as duly elected, can be applied only when there are just two candidates at an election.22. Therefore, apart from the fact that in the election petition, there were no pleadings of material facts co-relatable to the ingredients of clause (a) or (b) of Section 101 of the Act, to sustain prayer (c), even legally the High Court could not have granted prayer (c) in view of the fact that there were 14 candidates in the fray.23. In view of the above, the Order of the High Court does not call for any interference.