Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India bars the challenge to an election except by an election petition or a proceeding provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.

Headnote:
ELECTION - NOMINATION - DEFAULTER - OCTROI TAX - ELECTION PETITION - ARTICLE 243-ZG OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL COUNCILS, NAGAR PANCHAYATS AND INDUSTRIAL TOWNSHIPS ACT, 1965 - RULE 15 OF THE MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND NAGAR PANCHAYATS ELECTION RULES, 1966 - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION - ELECTION DISPUTE - ELECTION PROCESS - ELECTION TRIBUNAL - ELECTION COMMISSION - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a candidate for the Digras Municipal Council elections, challenged the order of the Additional District Judge, Pusad, which allowed an appeal and directed the rejection of his nomination form. The objection raised was that the petitioner was a defaulter and had not paid octroi taxes on his cars. The Returning Officer overruled the objection and accepted the nomination form, but the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, which bars the challenge to an election except by an election petition or a proceeding provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. The court also held that Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966, which provided for an appeal against the decision of the Returning Officer, accepting or rejecting a nomination paper, was not unconstitutional and was not in conflict with Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966, was unconstitutional and in conflict with Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, which bars the challenge to an election except by an election petition or a proceeding provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. The court held that the term 'election' in Article 243-ZG should be interpreted broadly to include the entire election process and not just the final selection of a candidate. 2. The court held that Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966, was not unconstitutional and was not in conflict with Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India. The court held that the rule provided an additional remedy for challenging an election and was not inconsistent with the provision for an election petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

JUDGMENT - SIRPURKAR V.S., J.:---The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pusad, whereby the Additional District Judge allowed an appeal filed by one Sandeep Laxmanrao Banginwar, respondent No. 18 herein, and directed that the nomination form of the petitioner should be rejected. Following facts will highlight the grievance of the petitioner.

2. Elections of the Wards of Digras Municipal Council were declared and in pursuance thereof the petitioner filled up a nomination form from Ward No. 16 for being elected as a ward member. On the date of scrutiny, i.e., on 14-11-1996, respondent No. 18 - Sandeep Laxmanrao Banginwar filed an objection contending that the petitioner was a defaulter and had not paid the octroi taxes on the cars bearing Registration Nos. MH 29 B 1575 and MHX 4755. It was contended in the objection that the petitioner was, thus, a defaulter and had disqualified himself from contesting the election for the ward member. The Returning Officer, on this objection, called for a report from the respondent No. 3/Municipal Council and was informed by the Municipal Council that the octroi tax was already paid. The objection raised by the respondent No. 18 was overruled by the Returning Officer and the nomination form of the petitioner was accepted. This acceptance caused respondent No. 18 to file an appeal, which was registered as Election Appeal No. 5/96 before the Additional District Judge, Pusad. The necessary formalities were completed and the Additional District Judge, Pusad, who decided the appeal, allowed the same, necessitating the present petition.

3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the order of the Additional District Judge is wholly incorrect on merits as under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for the sake of brevity), it was necessary that the bill of the sum due from him should have been presented on him under clause (h) of section 16(1) of the Act and admittedly, in the absence of any bill, the petitioner could not have been declared to be a defaulter and thereby could not have been prevented from contesting the election. The petitioner has supported his contentions with number of documents suggesting that, firstly, the said octroi tax was not due and, secondly, no bill was ever presented to him and, therefore, there was no question of default to make the payment of the bill.

4. Shri J.N. Chandurkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 18, and Shri J. T Gilda, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and the Returning Officer, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, have raised a preliminary objection, where they have contended that the present writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel contend that under this Article, an election cannot be challenged except by an election petition or by a proceeding provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. The learned Counsel point out that because of the non obstante clause in that Article, even present writ petition would amount to a challenge to the election. They point out that the nomination of the candidates is an integral process of election and, therefore, a challenge to the list of nominated candidates would amount to a challenge to an election, which would not be possible by way of the present writ petition. Secondly, learned Counsel urge that the election programme has already begun and in that view of the matter, it could not be feasible for this Court now to interfere in an election programme and for that purpose, this Court should be slow to use its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if it is held that the writ petition is tenable.

5. The preliminary objection is opposed by Shri S.A. Bobde, learned Counsel appearing on behal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document