Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
N.P. Chapalgaonker V.R. Datar, JJ.
Bhosale Deepak Manikrao others..... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra others .....Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 4399, 4400, 4414, 4417, 4508 4539 of 1997, decided on 21-10-1997.
Advocates appeared :
V.D. Hon, for petitioners in W.P. No. 4399/97.
V.D. Sapkal, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in W.P. No. 4439/97 for No. 1 to 3 in 4539/97.
N.H. Patil, for respondents No. 5 in W.P. No. 4399 for respondent No. 2 in W.P. 4400 for respondent No. 4 in W.P. Nos. 4414, 4417 4539/97.
S.B. Deshmukh V.P. Latange, for intervenors in W.P. No. 4399/97.
R.B. Raghuwanshi, for petitioners in W.P. No. 4400/97.
Kishore Gadhave Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 2 4 in W.P. No. 4400/97.
P.G. Nagode, for respondent No. 6 in W.P. No. 4400/97.
N.K. Kakade, for petitioner in W.P. No. 4414/97.
R.S. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for State-respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 5 in W.P. No. 4414/97.
S.K. Shinde, for petitioner in W.P. No. 4417/97.
S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 4417/97.
S.T. Shelke, for respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 4417/97.
D.R. Bhadekar, for petitioner in W.P. 4508/97.
V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 4508/97.
V.G. Sakolkar, for petitioner in W.P. No. 4539/97.
Sections 15 and 15-ANomination papers rejected-Challenged on various grounds-Through a writ petition-Ground-Election petition only can deal with corrupt practices-Held-Section 15 does not limit grounds of challenge.-In the statutes governing Municipal Council election in Maharashtra, an appeal to District Judge against the rejection .and acceptance of nomination papers has been provided. It is not that similar provision should be there in all statutes but, even in village panchayats elections if, a remedy of an appeal is provided for, it is likely that the error may be corrected in time and this stitching time may save nine. Appeal against rejection of nomination paper is justifiable on another ground also. If, in an election to a seat or seats of village panchayat, all the nomination papers are wrongly rejected, the error is likely to go uncorrected since there would not be an election which may be challenged. It is a matter for the State Legislature to consider.
Sections 15 and 15-A-Constitution of India, Articles 243-O, 226 and 227-Rejection of nomination papers-Ground-N on-submission of no dues certificate-Held-Election Commission not empowered to issue such directions that are not familiar with candidates.- The State has provided that the candidate should not be a defaulter of the village panchayat. In what form the default is or is not, can be proved as a matter of evidence and if, the Election Commission has issued any instructions, those instructions should have been made known to all candidates. The Election Commission or the other officers engaged in the election process do not have power to issue instructions, which are not made known to the candidate, and reject the nomination on the ground that the instructions have not been followed. Who is a qualified candidate to be a voter, how the nomination papers is to be filled in, are the matters which affect the rights of individuals. Those cannot be governed by circulars or instructions which are for internal use only.
Sections 15 and 15-A-Constitution of India, Articles 243-O, 243- K, 226 and 227-Nomination papers rejection-challenged-Contention-On direction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227, the Election Commission can decide the matter-Held -In certain cases only procedure are to be followed and Election Commission not allowed to interfere-Civil Court jurisdiction is barred in such cases--Only election petition can do.-When the Returning Officer accepts the nomination paper or rejects the nomination paper, he adjudicates entitlement of a person to contest the election. This is a quasi-judicial function. Infraction of the rule of error committed by the Returning officer referred to in sub-section (7), is not a wrong decision of the Returning Officer in respect of acceptance or rejection of nomination paper. It was held that subsection (7) of Section 15 does not prevent the Judge from considering the improper rejection or acceptance of a nomination paper as a ground for setting aside the election of a returned candidate. The apprehension expressed is without any foundation.
Articles 243-O-Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Sections 15 and 15-A-Election of Panchayat-Nomination paper resulted in rejection-Challenge by election petition in writ jurisdiction not tenable due to constitutional and statutory bar.-Section 15 gives wide powers to the trial Judge to decide the validity of an election and does not specify any grounds. Therefore, qualification or the disqualification of a candidate elected, improper rejection or acceptance of nomination paper, improper counting or commission of corrupt practice can be a ground for invalidating the result of an election. Sub-section (7) of Section 15 added to the statute by amendment in the year 1970 prohibits setting aside of an election only on the ground of an error made by the Officer charged with carrying out the rules. Therefore, if there is an error which does not go to the root of the case and is only an infraction of a rule, that by itself will not entitle anybody to challenge the election and get it set aside on that count. If any of the provisions of the rule which does not relate to the qualification of a candidate or has not materially affected the result of the case, can be no ground for setting aside the election. Therefore, the Legislature has specifically directed that the Judge shall not set aside the election on such a ground, if irregularity and informality is not corruptly caused. When the Returning Officer accepts the nomination paper or rejects the nomination paper, he adjudicates entitlement of a person to contest the election. This is a quasi-judicial function. Infraction of the rule of error committed by the Returning-Officer referred to in sub-section (7) is not a wrong decision of the Returning Officer in respect of acceptance or rejection of nomination paper. There fore, it could be held that sub-section (7) of Section 15 does not prevent the Judge from considering the improper rejection or acceptance of a nomination paper as a ground for setting aside the election of a returned candidate.
Articles 243-O-Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Section 15A-Petitioner filing writ challenging the rejection of nomination papers in an election to Village Panchayat-Held, that sub-section (7) of Section 15 does not prevent the Judge from considering the improper rejection or acceptance of a nomination paper as a ground for setting aside the election of a returned candidate-Writ petition cannot be entertained and no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner in view of constitutional Bar under Article 243-0 and statutory bar under Section 15-A of the Act, 1958-Writ petition rejected.
Articles 243-O, 226 and 227-See Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, Sections 15 and 15-A.
2. In Writ Petition No. 4508 of 1997, the petitioner filed her nomination paper for the General Seat (unreserved seat). However, in the nomination paper filed by her for the election to Markand Village Panchayat, district Nanded, though she did write 'Sarwasadharan' (General), below it word 'Stri' was written. The Returning Officer held that there is no seat reserved for woman general in this ward and therefore, her nomination paper was rejected.
3. In Writ Petition No. 4400/1997 the nomination papers of the petitioners to the election of Village Panchayat Ranala in Dhule District were rejected on the ground that the petitioners were serving in some private Educational Society and had not taken proper permission of the society.
4. In Writ Petition No. 4539/1997 the nomination paper of the petitioner for the election to Chawan Hipperga Gram Panchayat was rejected on the ground that original Caste Certificate was presented at the time of scrutiny (meaning thereby that it was not annexed to the nomination paper).
5. In Writ Petition No. 4414 of 1997 the nomination paper of the petitioner for the election of Village Panchayat Morane (Nakane) of district Dhule was rejected on the ground that petitioner's name is included in the Voters' list for this Village Panchayat as well as in the Voters' list of Dhule Municipal Council and he did not produce any evidence about the steps taken for deleting his name from the electoral roll of Dhule Municipal Council.
6. The petitioners in these writ petitions contended before us that the rejection of the nomination papers is without any valid reason and prayed for a mandamus directing the Returning Officer to accept the nomination papers and permit the petitioners to contest the election for which they had filed their nominations
7. The elections impugned in these petitions are governed by the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and the Rules made thereunder. Section 15 of the said Act provides for a remedy by way of an election petition to challenge the validity of any election of a member of a panchayat, by bringing it in question by any candidate or any voter at such election, within fifteen days after the date of declaration of result of the election before Civil Judge. Right for Punnu Swami's case, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 64, now it is settled that acceptance or rejection of nomination paper is a stage in the election. Section 15-A inserted by the Maharashtra Act No. 36/1993 creates a bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. It reads, as under :
"15-A. No election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except in accordance with the provisions of section 15; and no Court other than the Judge referred to in that section shall entertain any dispute in respect of such election."
The specific provision appears to be in conformity with the Constitutional bar contained in Article 243-O. Clause (b) of the said Article reads that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. Therefore, the Constitutional and the statutory bar quoted above would prohibit any interference in the election and any step in the election will have to be challenged by way of the remedy provided for by the Act and in no other manner.
8. Shri R.B. Raghuwanshi, learned Counsel appearing in one of the petitions for the petitioners contended before us that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, can correc
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
