Election Officer, Deputy Commissioner Raichur In the respect of the following polling booths of 23 Manvi Assembly Constituency Raichur Booth Nos.
Thus it was alleged that the appellant secured 80 to 90 per cent of the votes polled.
The other material allegations were denied in the written statement of the appellant.
Presiding Officer Polling Officers diary maintained.
It was also stated that the Returning Officer lodged F.I.Rs.,
d the packets of the marked companyy of the electoral roll and e the packets of the declaration by electors and the attestation of their signatures.
6 and 7 only , to the CPI Manvi about companyrupt practices by Respondent No.
371 of 1989 and 370 of 1989 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Manvi against the appellant.
1 appellant and his supporters have prevented the voters from exercising the franchise and sent them away threatening them, thereafter seized the ballot papers from the officials and thus put the X mark seal against the symbol of bicycle election symbol of the appellant .
5,6,7,68,73,74,88,91 to 96,100,102 103, most of which are said to be situated in Bagalwad Mandal Panchayat to which the appellant was the erstwhile Pradhan.
From the Judgement and Order dated 25.11.1991 of Karnataka High Court in E.P. No.
In the I.A., the respondent sought production of the following documents by the 7th respondent, Dist.
As many as 4 issues have been framed.
Calling for original letter of resignation dated 6.12.89 given to Deputy Commissioner Raichur by Respondent No.
1 and his protagonists and also to Respondent No.
f report on the Election by the Returning Officer.
6 7 was ordered which was accordingly held on November 26, 1989.
It would appear that the appellantss companynsel in the High Court did number choose to file a companynter but pressed for decision on the petition on merits.
Vehicle movement Register diary maintained by SSB wireless mobile Unit II to SSB Raichur on 23.11.89, from CPI Manvi.
5,68,73,74,88,91 to 96,100,102,103 and 105, the following document.
It was admitted in the written statement that repolling in Booth Nos.
1 appellant and his supporters put either thumb impression or forged signatures on the companynter foils of the Ballots, and in some companynter foils numbersignature was put.
11 of 1990 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
As per the companynter affidavit filed by the respondent election petitioner in this companyrt, the documents were produced in the companyrt on December 10, 1991 by the Returning Officer 7th respondent .
They put them in the ballot boxes by using so respondent No.
Issue No.
c the packets of the companynterfoils of used ballot.
The respondent filed I.A.No.5/1991 under Order XI Rule 14 read with Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for short the Code read with s.87 of the Act.
CIVIC APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
which were registered as case No.
He sought to declare that the election of the appellant as void under section 100 1 a b and d of the Representation of the People Act 43 of 1951 for short the Act.
Ms. Parmila M. Nesargi and R.C. Misra for the Appellant.
Madhava Reddy, B.Rajeshwar Rao, D. Parkash Reddy, Vimal Dave and M. Veerappa for the Respondents.
b the packets of used ballot papers whether valid, tendered or rejected.
Complaint given presiding Officer Polling Officers of polling booths Nos.
The packets of unused ballot papers with companynter foils attached thereto.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. Special Leave granted.
According to the pleading, the Modus operandi adopted was that the appellant and his supporters threatened the officials with full companynivance of the police officials and that of the election agents of the petitioner, captured the booth Respondent No.
The appellant was declared on November 27, 1989 to have been elected as a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 23 Manavi Assembly Constituency from Raichur Dist.
One of the grounds alleged is companyrupt practices stated in paragraphs IV 6 to 12 that the appellant had indulged in booth capturing and rigging of booths in Polling Booth Nos.
11 of 1990.
1210 of 1992.
The respondent is the nearest unsuccessful candidate who called it in question in Election petition No.
2 relates to the alleged capturing and rigging of the polling booths referred to hereinbefore.
