“Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial Forgery Of ACR Is No Part Of Official Duty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against IFS Officer Sole Eye-Witness Not Wholly Reliable, Conviction Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused in Alleged Witchcraft Double Murder Case Functional Disability, Not Mere Physical Percentage, Determines Compensation: Kerala High Court Remands Employees’ Compensation Case for Medical Board Assessment Conviction Cannot Rest On Fictitious Memorandums – When Investigation Is Tainted, Benefit Of Doubt Must Follow: MP High Court Legal Objection Cannot Be Sprung in Second Appeal: P&H High Court Draws Sharp Line Between ‘Legal Plea’ and ‘Legal Objection’ When Foundational Facts Are Seriously Disputed, Writ Court Ought Not To Undertake A Fact-Finding Exercise: Kerala High Court Compliance Affidavits Are Nothing But Admission of Disobedience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Puts Chief Secretaries and DGPs in Dock Over Arnesh Kumar Violations Husband’s Salary Slips Are Personal Information: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Disclosure Under RTI

Election Process Never Commenced, Stood Frustrated Due to Officer’s Absence: Karnataka High Court on Nalluru Gram Panchayat Dispute

12 August 2025 9:00 PM

By: sayum


“Even if it is presumed that nomination of the petitioner has been submitted, it was never scrutinized and further election process did not take place at all” — Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Smt. Kamala N. Nanjegowda, who sought a declaration that she be treated as the elected President (Adhyaksha) of the Nalluru Gram Panchayat in Devanahalli Taluk after being the sole person to hand in a nomination on the scheduled election day.

Justice M.I. Arun, deciding W.P. No. 22758 of 2025 (LB–RES), upheld the State’s decision to scrap the aborted process of 21 July 2025 and to hold a fresh election on 6 August 2025, observing that “the election process scheduled did not commence at all and the entire process has been frustrated due to action of the Prescribed Election Officer.”

The election was to be conducted under a calendar of events issued on 9 July 2025 by Prescribed Officer Ravindra Singh. Nominations were to be filed between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., scrutinised between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., followed by withdrawal and polling. But on the appointed day, “without making any alternative arrangements, for personal reasons, the said Ravindra Singh did not attend the Office.”

The petitioner claimed she had lodged her nomination between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. with “another Officer who was present in the Office” and argued that, as no other candidate submitted papers, she ought to be declared elected. The Court noted, however, that this official was “not authorized to receive the said nomination” and, crucially, that “no further proceedings in respect of the election process has taken place” thereafter.

It was also undisputed, the Court recorded, that “the impleading applicants… could not submit their nomination papers, as the Prescribed Election Officer was not found.” The State informed the Court that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the defaulting officer.

Holding that the mandatory nomination procedure under the panchayat election rules requires submission to the Prescribed Election Officer and scrutiny thereafter, Justice Arun concluded:

“Even if it is presumed that nomination of the petitioner has been submitted, it was never scrutinized and further election process did not take place at all… it has to be held that the election process scheduled did not commence at all.”

Finding “no fault… in the action of the State in deciding to hold fresh election,” the Court dismissed the writ petition. It added a clarification that “any of the eligible contestants including the petitioner are entitled to file nomination for the election to be conducted on 06.08.2025, if they are eligible.”

Date of Decision: 5 August 2025

Latest Legal News