The proposer and seconder of a candidate in a municipal election must be voters in the concerned ward.

Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - NOMINATION PAPER - RULE 9 OF THE MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1965 - INTERPRETATION - PROPOSER AND SECONDER OF A CANDIDATE MUST BE VOTERS IN THE CONCERNED WARD - NOMINATION PAPER OF A CANDIDATE WHOSE PROPOSER AND SECONDER ARE NOT VOTERS IN THE CONCERNED WARD IS LIABLE TO REJECTION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a candidate in the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation elections, had his nomination paper rejected because his proposer and seconder were not voters in the ward he was contesting from. He challenged the rejection in court, arguing that Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, did not require the proposer and seconder to be voters in the concerned ward.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that Rule 9, read with the form of nomination paper and other provisions of the Act, clearly required the proposer and seconder of a candidate to be voters in the concerned ward. The court also noted that the fundamental principle of election law is that a candidate is to be proposed and seconded by an elector who is entitled to cast a vote at the election, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary made in the relevant statute.
Issues: Whether the proposer and seconder of a candidate in a municipal election must be voters in the concerned ward.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, the form of nomination paper, and other provisions of the Act to conclude that the proposer and seconder of a candidate must be voters in the concerned ward. The court also noted that the fundamental principle of election law is that a candidate is to be proposed and seconded by an elector who is entitled to cast a vote at the election, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary made in the relevant statute.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper.

JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI C.S., J.: - The general elections to the Kolhapur Municipal Corpn. were held on 30th January, 1985. The petitioner No. 1 Shri Ashok Anandrao Bhandare had filed a nomination paper from Ward No. 49. His name was proposed and seconded by the voters whose names were enrolled in the ward electoral rolls of the Ward No. 57. The petitioner No. 1 was also a voter enrolled in Ward No. 57. Thus neither the candidate nor the proposer or seconder were voters whose names were enrolled in the electoral rolls of the ward concerned i.e. Ward No. 49. Since the petitioner No. 1's name was not proposed by the voters in Ward No. 49, his nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer. Thereafter the elections were duly held to the said ward and the respondent No. 3. Shri Tukaram Manik Gothadki was declared as duly elected Councillor from Ward No. 49. The petitioners then filed an election petition challenging the said election. On the construction of Rule 9 read with other provisions of the Act and the rules, the learned Civil Judge S.D. Kolhapur, came to the conclusion that the proposer and the seconder should be voters in the concerned ward to which the candidate wants to contest the election. The learned Judge held that this rule in mandatory and, therefore, the nomination paper of the petitioner No. 1 was rightly rejected by the Returning Officer. Therefore the election petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. It is this order of the Civil Judge S.D. Kolhapur which is challenged in this writ petition.

2. We have heard the Counsel for both sides at the stage of admission itself. Shri Shah the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that on true construction of Rule 9 it ought to have been held by the authorities below that a voter whose name is included in any of the ward list can propose or second the name of a candidate from any ward. It is not necessary that the proposer and the seconder should be the voters from the concerned ward only, and therefore, the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Kolhapur, has committed an error apparent on the face of record in holding that the nomination paper of petitioner No. 1 was rightly rejected. It is not possible for us to accept this contention for more than one reason.

3. Section 5 of the Act, speaks about the Constitution of the Corporation. Each Corpn. consists of such number of Councillors, not exceeding one hundred, elected at ward election as the State Government may from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette fix. The State Government is obliged to fix the number of councillors and boundaries of the wards, by dividing the city for the purpose of election. Each ward has to elect one Councillor. Section 7-A, also speaks about the ward rolls which collectively shall be deemed to be the Municipal Election Roll. Section 7-B declares that every person whose name is included in any ward roll shall be deemed to be enrolled in the Municipal Election roll. Thus it is clear that a candidate can be elected as a Councillor from a particular ward, by the persons enrolled as electors or voters for that particular ward. Then comes section 8 which deals with the qualification of a person to vote. It lays down that every person whose name is in the ward roll shall be deemed to be entitled to vote at the ward election and every person whose name is not in said roll shall be deemed to be not entitled to vote. By section 9 qualification for election as a councillor is laid down. A person who is enrolled in the Municipal Electoral Roll as a voter for award is qualified to be the councillor and to be elected either from such ward or from any other ward. Therefore, so far as the candidate is concerned, he can contest election from any ward if he is enrolled in the Municipal Electoral Roll as voter. Section 453 of the Act lays down that the Rules in the schedule as framed from time to time shall be deemed to be part and parcel of the Act. Then comes the relevant po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis