By Admin 
The High Court of Karnataka has set aside the decision of the Electoral Officer (EO) rejecting the nomination papers of K.N. Shanth Kumar, director of The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., and declared as valid his nomination papers for the post of the president of the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA).
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order on November 29 (Saturday) while allowing a petition filed by Mr. Kumar challenging the November 24 decision of the EO. The nomination papers were rejected for the reason that there were arrears of ₹200 from Deccan Herald and Prajavani (DH&PV) Sports Club, which has an institutional membership with the KSCA, represented by Mr. Kumar.
The rejection of the nomination papers of Mr. Kumar had set the stage for the unanimous election of former cricketer Venkatesh Prasad to the post of president, as his nomination paper was found valid and the withdrawal of nomination papers by Kalpana Venkatachar, who was the third contestant for the post of president, in support of Mr. Prasad.
With today’s order of the Court, the stage is set to hold the election for the post of president. The Court said that the remaining process of elections would be conducted as per the calendar of events fixed by the court earlier with the elections scheduled to be held on December 7.
The Court also directed the EO to publish the list of contesting candidates for the post of president by 3 p.m. on November 29.
Background of case
It was contended on behalf of Mr. Kumar that the arrears were paid before the scrutiny of his nomination papers by the EO, as the bye-law only states that founder institutional members cannot contest the elections “as long as they are in arrears” of payment of the subscription fee of more than ₹100. Since Mr. Kumar’s institution, DH&PV Sports Club, had paid the arrears before scrutiny of nomination papers, there was no bar on him to contest the elections, it was contended on his behalf.
Meanwhile, the KSCA’s CEO had told the Court that a list of members who have defaulted in payment of membership and hence the members could not be informed about arrears in payment towards membership fee before commencement of the election process, as per the by-law, which bars a member from casting a vote in the elections and contest elections pending payment of any arrears.
It was contended on behalf of Mr. Parasad and Ms. Kalpana that the rejection of Mr. Kumar’s nomination papers was correct as arrears should have been paid prior to filling of nomination papers.
On a question posed by the Court, the EO had, on November 26, told the Court that payment of arrears of ₹200 was paid before the scrutiny of nomination papers of Mr. Kumar, but it was rejected that payment was due when the nomination papers were filed. The Court had also viewed the video recording of the process of scrutiny of nomination papers of Mr. Kumar.