Case: Veeresh Kotagi Vs. M. Shivalingappa &amp; Others

2. The respondent No.1 filed Election Petition No.1 of 2016 against the present appellant before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba on many a ground. The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, vide order dated 01.07.2017, set aside the election of the appellant.3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.38601/2017 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. Before the High Court, it was contended that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had no jurisdiction to entertain the election petition. The writ Court declined to accept the said plea by statingThis Court is therefore of the opinion that such a question should have been raised before the learned Court below in the first instance. Now at this stage, since an alternative remedy by way of review or further appeal is available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present case at this stage and there are no extraordinary reasons or circumstances to allow the present petitioner to directly approach this Court by way of present writ petition.Being of this view, it dismissed the writ petition.5. Anappeal was filed by the appellant forming the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.5602/2017and the Division Bench of the High Court declined to interfere in the appeal by opiningWe, however, do not think it proper to exercise our discretion to entertain this appeal so as to give a finding at this stage as to whether the Court before whom the election dispute was filed by the respondents, indeed had the inherent jurisdiction or not. We think, that is a matter which has to be considered by that Court in the first instance. In such circumstances, we do not think that the said Judgments would be of any assistance to the appellant herein.9. In the circumstance, we find that the learned Single Judge was right in not entertaining the Writ Petition or interfering with the impugned order and relegating the petitioner to either file a review petition or an appeal against the order dated 01.07.2017. Therefore, we find no merit in the Writ Appeal."

Reasoning: 9. There is no dispute that Sectionhas been amended on 12.07.2017 and on the date when the election was set aside, the aforequoted provision was in force. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear to us that the Senior Civil Judge was designated for the trial of election disputes to Gram Panchayats and Taluk Panchayats and the Court of jurisdictional District Judge was designated for the trial of election disputes relating to Zilla Panchayats. Thus, there can be no iota of doubt that the Senior Civil Judge had no jurisdiction whatsoever to try the election disputes as an Election Tribunal. It is the jurisdictional District Judge who has been statutorily declared as the `Designated Court. It isin law that consent cannot confer any kind of jurisdiction.10. In view of the aforesaid, the election proceeding was not maintainable and, therefore, we are compelled to set aside all the orders passed against the appellant and accordingly it is so ordered. Needless to say, the appellant shall function as a Member of the Zilla Panchayat. It is to be stated here that anyone who challenges or assails an election has to do it in the appropriate forum otherwise the law relating to election shall lose its sanctity.