Disciplinary Authority Cannot Override Enquiry Officer’s Clean Chit Without Hearing the Employee: Madhya Pradesh High Court Remands Termination for Procedural Lapse Appointment Secured by Misstating Marks Is Void Ab Initio; Human Error No Excuse Where Advantage Gained: Allahabad High Court Appeal Maintainable Despite Modified MACT Award — Kerala High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review in Motor Accident Claims No Notice, No Blacklist: Calcutta High Court Quashes Debarment Over Breach of Natural Justice Prosecution Must Elevate Its Case From Realm Of ‘May Be True’ To Plane Of ‘Must Be True: Orissa High Court Strict Compliance Is the Rule, Not Exception: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tenant's Plea for Late Deposit of Rent Arrears When Accused Neither Denies Signature Nor Rebuts Presumption, Conviction Must Follow Under Section 138 NI Act: Karnataka High Court A Guardian Who Violates, Forfeits Mercy: Kerala High Court Upholds Natural Life Sentence in Stepfather–POCSO Rape Case Married and Earning Sons Are Legal Representatives Entitled to Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Motor Accident Award to ₹14.81 Lakh Driver Must Stop, Render Aid & Report Accident – Flight from Scene Is an Offence: Madras High Court Convicts Hit-And-Run Accused Under MV Act Delay May Shut the Door, But Justice Cannot Be Locked Out: Gauhati High Court Admits Union of India’s Arbitration Appeal Despite Time-Bar Under Section 30 PC Act | Mere Recovery of Money Is Not Enough—Demand and Acceptance Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Allahabad High Court Slams Bar Council of U.P. for Ex Parte 10-Year Suspension of Advocate

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