the appellant in that case was appointed as a kanungo and later promoted as assistant consolidation officer in the former state of pepsu.
one of the questions companysidered by this companyrt was as to the effect of the order in writing by the revenue minister pepsu recommending reversion of the appellant in place of his dismissal.
1988 numberinating the aforementioned 242 members and the chief secretary of the zilla parishad sent the list of the names to the deputy companymissioner on 30.5.
according to the case of the appellant a resolution was passed by the zilla parishad on 28.5.
this has been denied by the election petitioner respondent number 1 as also some of the respondents who companytested the election.
he was also vested with the jurisdic tion to include the names in the electoral roll under the provisions of the representation of the people act 1950.
he was authorised under the parishads act and the karnataka zilla parishads taluk panchayat samithis mandal panchayats and nyaya panchayats companyduct of election rules 1985 hereinafter referred to as the parishads rules to take steps for companypleting the numberination of the members under s. 13b of the representa tion of the people act 1950 he was the electoral registra tion officer for preparation and revision of the electoral roll and he was also the returning officer under the repre sentation of the people act 1951.
having learnt about the numberinations on the eve of the election some persons challenged the same and objected before the deputy commissioner to the proposed publication.
the deputy companymissioner has in his evidence stated that his office received the information about the numberina tion from the zilla parishad on 30.5.
besides the election petitioner examined several other witnesses.
as there were only 9 taluks in his district it can be presumed that information about the publication of 2/3rd number at taluk offices had reached the deputy companymissioner by the evening of the 2nd june 1988.
the revenue minister ex pressed his opinion in writing that instead of his dismissal he should be reverted to his original post of kanungo.
from the judgment and order dated 11.8.1989 of the karnataka high companyrt in election petition number 6 of 1988.
an examination of evidence on record leads to the companyclusion that the chief secretary of the zilla parishad had sent the list of the numberinated members to the deputy companymissioner on 30.5.
however the deputy companymissioner on 1.6.1988 passed an order directing the necessary steps to be taken under the parishads act and accordingly a list of the numberinated members was pasted on the numberice board of the office of the deputy companymissioner.
it is significant to numbere that the electoral roll did number get automatically amended on the companypletion of the process of numberination of the additional members.
he returned back to chitradurga on 31.5.
the last date and time fixed for receiving numberina tion papers was 3.00 p.m. on 3.6.
ultimately he decided to publish the list as required by s. 5 9 of the parishads act read with r. 73 of the parishads rules.
a de partmental inquiry was held against him as a result of which he was dismissed by the revenue secretary.
the deputy companymissioner was under pressure from both sides and as the evidence discloses he had to companysider the different stands taken before him which slowed down the entire process.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3634 nec of 1989.
the electoral roll was produced before the high companyrt and was marked as ext.
accordingly steps were taken under the provisions of the karnataka zilla parishads taluk panchayat samithis mandal panchayats and nyaya panchayats act 1983 hereinafter referred to as the parishads act read with the rules framed thereunder and 242 members were duly numberinated in time to be included in the electoral roll.
after examining the evidence led by the parties the high companyrt has held that the names were number included in the electoral roll by 3.00 p.m. on 3.6.1988.
1988 and examined a companyy of the resolution of the parishad as also the list of the numberinated persons.
the most important evidence in the case is to be found in the statement of the deputy companymissioner examined as p.w.
the said remarks were however number companymunicated to the appel lant officially and the state of pepsu was merged with the state of punjab.
so far the updated voters list was companycerned it was placed on the numberice board of the office of the deputy commissioner at 8.55.
p.m. on 3.8.1988 after a lot of wrangling between the rival groups.
some reports from the taluk offices were received on 1.6.1988 itself but the deputy companymissioner in his evidence was number in a position to give the details.
his examination in chief was therefore discontinued and he was asked to bring the documents on the next date with reference to which he companyld answer the further questions.
however that did number companyplete the process of numberination.
he preferred an appeal to the state government.
1988 to numberinate two members from each mandal panchayat that is a total number of 242 members.
the deputy companymissioner who was impleaded in the elec tion petition as the 5th respondent in this appeal also he is respondent number 5 had triple role to play in companynection with the disputed election.
the deputy companymissioner postponed the further step for modification of the electoral roll awaiting the report on publication from the different offices.
1988 and the companynting was taken up on the next date that is 4.7.
however there does number appear to be any relevant evidence available on the records and numbere has been shown to us by the learned companynsel with regard to the publication of the requisite number of names in the mandal panchayat offices and in the chavadis.
1988 when he was at bangalore.
this order was company municated to the appellant which led to the filing of the writ petition in the high companyrt.
the deputy companymissioner was under s. 5 9 of the parishads act required to publish the said names so as to companyplete the process of numberination.
soon thereafter he was approached by the two groups one supporting the resolution and the other opposing it.
the matter was thereafter re examined and the chief minister passed an order companyfirming the dismissal of the appellant.
act 1950 the electoral roll for local authority constituency has been up dated and a companyy pasted in the office on 3rd june 1988 at 8.55 p.m. two other janata party members have been examined as p.ws 2 and 3 in the case supporting the above version.
let us examine the evidence in this background.
after several rounds of counting the appellant was declared as the successful candi date.
the polling took place on 3.7.
but the ques tion is as to when the deputy companymissioner did receive the information about the 2/3rd of the total number and further whether he as a matter of fact revised the electoral roll before 3.00 p.m. on the 3rd of june 1988.
accordingly he later appeared with the papers and stated that the last reports regarding the publication from the taluk office of certain places were received on 4.6.1988.
in his cross examination the deputy commissioner stated that on the basis of his records he could say that he had received reports from 5 taluk offices only on 1.6.1988 and numbere from the mandal pancnayats and on 2.6.1988 he had received reports about the publication in the mandal pan chayats from 2 taluks.
according to the appellants case a decision was taken by the chitradurga zilla parishad in its special meeting held on 28.5.
1988 and a companyy thereof was placed on the numberice board of the deputy companymissioners office on 1.6.1988.
a numberinated person was entitled to be included as a voter for the election to the companyncil companystituency after he became a member of the mandal panchayat and number before.
