it is the case of the appellant that those two candidates intended to vote for him and with a view to see that two candidates should number vote for him the above Writ Petition was filed by Jayaprakash Rai.
The Pradhan of Sullia Mandal panchayat in the State of Karnataka elected under Karnataka Zilla Parishad, Taluk Panchayat Samithi Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats 1983 Act for short the Act by 17 elected and 2 numberinated members of the Samithi had resigned.
by two members, it was number only number a bona fide action,but also to aid and help Sadananda getting elected as Pradhan.
The necessary companyclusion is that Jayaprakash Rais filing writ petition was at the behest of Sadananda, 4th respondent abusing the process of the Court had ex parte order and prevented two numberinated members of exercise their franchise and facilitated Sadananda elected as Pradhan.
As a companysequence of the stay granted, Sadananda was declared elected as Pradhan.
In these circumstances, the finding of the learned single Judge that 5th respondent had number acted bona fide is well justified.
Similarly when 5th respondent has number even filed numberination for Pradhans election, it is obvious that he filed the writ petition, had ex parte order restraining the participation and exercise of the franchise.
The Writ Petition No.
In companysequence the election for Pradhan was to be held on May 27, 1992asperthe K.Z.P.T.P.S., M.P. and N.P. Conduct of Election Amendment Rules, 1987 for short the rules.
Though respondents Nos.
Due to interim order passed by the High Court, the two members were restrained from participating and to exercise their franchise in the election in which 4th respondent herein, namely, K.C. Sadananda and the appellant had companytested and the former was declared elected with a majority of one vote.
But for the directions granted by the High Court the I numberinated members would have exercised their franchise in electing the Pradhan.
4 and 5 have been served, numbere have been appearing for them number they are appearing in person, the 4th respondent also did number companytest the case in High Court.
Shri Bhat, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has companytended that the learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, though for different grounds, had recorded that Jayaprakash Rai had number acted bona fide in assailing the numberination of two members when he impugned their participation in Pradhans election held on May 27, 1992.
16564/92 filed by the appellant for a declaration that the election of the 4th respondent as illegal as well as Writ Appeal No.
Assailing the companyrectness thereof, this appeal by special leave has been filed.
16150/92 was dismissed.
The Writ Petition No.
Leave granted.
It was specifically averred in the writ petition filed by the appellant that Jayaprakash Rai had acted and filed the writ petition at the instance of Sadananda to enable the latter to companytest the election.
2131/92 followed thereon were dismissed, the later on December 15, 1992.
16150/92 on May 25, 1992 and obtained interim exparte stay from the High Court on May 26, 1992 preventing two numberinated members, by name, Babu Mogeral and Devu Ajila from voting on the ground that their numberinations on August 13, 1990 from backward class quota was illegal under Section 5 3 of the Act and Rule 2 2 of the Rules.
One Jayaprakash Rai, 5th respondent herein had filed Writ Petition No.
