Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To Land Ceiling Proceedings Filed After 11-Year Delay; Says Belated Grievance Deemed Waiver Of Rights POCSO Courts Cannot Bypass Accused's Right To Seek Discharge In The Name Of Expeditious Trial; Right To Hearing Is Substantive Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh HC Hyper-Technical Approach Cannot Be Used To Shield Corrupt Employees; Reinstating Dismissed Worker Over Minor Wage Deficit Perverse: Bombay High Court Delisting Of Railway Vendor Invalid If Sampling Done Behind Its Back & Reply Ignored Despite Receipt Before Final Order: Calcutta High Court Vague & Omnibus Allegations Against Husband's Relatives In Matrimonial Disputes Amount To Abuse Of Process: Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes FIR Under Section 85 BNS Sovereignty Of Nation Prevails Over Personal Liberty In Cases Of Organised Terrorist Activity: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Alleged IM Media Chief Divorce Petition Filed Within One Year Of Marriage Pre-Mature; Court Shouldn't Decide Merits While Dismissing Such Suit: Gujarat High Court Plaintiffs Cannot Adduce Evidence As A Matter Of Right At Belated Stage After Multiple Adjournments: Gauhati High Court Accused Cannot Be Punished For Both Simple & Grievous Hurt For Same Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Trial Courts Must Not Be Influenced By Emotions In Matrimonial Disputes: Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Section 498A IPC Conviction Statutory Embargo Under MCOCA Cannot Eclipse Right Against Prolonged Incarceration Under Article 21: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Sukesh Chandra Shekhar’s Associate Magistrate Can’t Reject Police Closure Report & Order Further Investigation Without Assigning Cogent Reasons: J&K & Ladakh HC Mere Directorship Not Enough To Fasten Criminal Liability Under Section 138 NI Act Without Specific Averments: Karnataka High Court Separation For Over 10 Years & No Cohabitation: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Observing Irretrievable Breakdown Amounts To Cruelty Trial Court Must Personally Settle Sale Proclamation, Cannot Delegate Judicial Power To Advocate Commissioner: Madras High Court Anticipatory Bail In Corruption Cases Can Be Granted Only In Exceptional Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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