Sarla w/o Sopan Bopale (Smt. ) vs State of Maharashtra & others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(Bom) 832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
J.N. Patel S.D. Gundewar, JJ.
Sarla w/o Sopan Bopale (Smt.) .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 2697, 2698, 2702, 2780, 2901, 2910 and 3045 of 2000, decided on 20-10-2000.
Advocates appeared :
U.S. Dastane, in W.P. No. 2697, 2698, 2702/2000, for petitioner.
T.R. Kankale, A.G.P., in W.P. 2697/2000, for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
T.D. Khade, in W.P. No. 2697, 2698, 2702/2000, for respondent No. 2 and in W.P. No. 3045/2000, for respondent No. 5.
P.B. Patil, in W.P. No. 2697, 2698, 2702/2000, for respondent No. 5.
B.H. Dangre, A.G.P., in W.P. No. 2697, 2698/2000, for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
A.M. Deshpande, A.G.P., in W.P. No. 2702/2000, for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
A.P. Tathod, in W.P. No. 2780/2000, for the petitioner.
D.B. Yengal, A.G.P., in W.P. No. 2780/2000, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
A.S. Mardikar, in W.P. No. 2901/2000, for petitioner.
S.G. Loney, A.G.P., in W.P. No. 2901/2000, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
T.D. Khade, in W.P. No. 2901/2000, for respondent No. 1-A and in W.P. No. 2910/2000, for respondent Nos. 3.
P.C. Madkholkar, in W.P. No. 2901/2000, for respondent No. 4.
Anand Parchure, in W.P. No. 2780/2000, for respondent No. 3.
S.J. Khandalkar, in W.P. No. 2910/2000, for petitioners.
S.J. Jichkar, A.G.P., in W.P. No. 2910/2000, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
V.G. Bhamburkar, in W.P. No. 2910/2000, for respondent No. 5.
P.C. Madkholkar, in W.P. No. 2910/2000, for respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 11.
Amol Mardikar, in W.P. No. 3045/2000, for petitioner.
A.M. Deshpande, A.G.P., in W.P. No. 3045/2000, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
A.V. Bhide, in W.P. No. 3045/2000, for respondent No. 4.

Headnote:Articles 226 and 227-Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Section 15-Modification in result of Village Panchayat-Returning Officer modified the same-Invoking Section 21 of General Clauses Act-Writ filed against-Whether the writ is maintainable-Held-Offer can not go beyond powers vested in him by statute-Remedy available under Section 151 of Village Panchayat Act-Writ jurisdiction need not be invoked.- The underlying principle which has persuaded the Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is that "Purity of election process has to be preserved" and, therefore, if in a given situation, the very nature of things such as in the matters at hand, what Court find is a strong case which calls for intervention. The main emphasis on the part of the respondents in justifying the authority of the Returning Officer to modify the results of the elected candidates is by placing reliance on Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which has been so referred to in the impugned notifications. Having quashed and set aside the impugned corrigendum, the cause of action for filing the Election Petition under Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, to the aggrieved party would arise from the date of decision and period of limitation prescribed under the said provisions is to be construed accordingly. Civil Judge before whom petition for determination of validity of election is filed or will be filed, will decide the same without being influenced by any observation of this Court made while deciding these petitions and the same shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---This group of petitions involve a common question as to whether the Returning Officer is vested with any right to add to, amend, vary or rescind the result of election after the same is declared by him under Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules 1959 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1959) and, therefore, these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Facts in W.P. No. 2697/2000 : The petitioner impugns the Corrigendum/order dated 10-6-2000 issued by the respondent-Returning Officer under which he modified the results of the election of the Gram Panchayat, Umali, Taluka Malkapur, District Buldhana, which were held on 9-6-2000. The petitioner contested the said election from Ward No. 1 which is multimember constituency comprising of three seats. Out of three seats, one is reserved for other Backward Class candidate, one for Woman General category and the remaining one was open. The petitioner contested the election from Woman General Category while the respondent No. 5 contested the election from General category. On 10-6-2000, in accordance with Rule 34(1) of the Rules of 1959, the Returning Officer declared the petitioner as elected from open/general category. But subsequently, by the impugned corrigendum, on the same day, modified the result and instead of the petitioner, declared the respondent No. 5 Gulab s/o Motiram Dhoran as elected from open/General category, relying upon the notification No. RNA 1097/PK 17197 dated 20th October, 1997, claiming to have exercised such a right under Clause 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which is impugned in this petition.

Writ Petition No. 2698/2000: The election to the Gram Panchayat Belad, Tahsil Malkapur, District Akola were held on 9-6-2000. The petitioner, contested the election from Ward No. 2 which is multimember constituency comprising of three seats, one seat reserved for other Backward Class category, one for Woman General Category and the remaining one is for open/general category. The petitioner contested election from Woman General category, while the respondent No. 5 contested the election from open/general category. On 10-6-2000, the Returning Officer, in accordance with Rule 34(1) of the Rules of 1959, declared the petitioner as elected from the open/general category, but, subsequently, modified the result by issuing a corrigendum on the same day i.e. 10-6-2000 and declared the respondent No. 5 Eknath Vishwanath Sambre as elected in place of the petitioner, relying on the same notification issued by the State Election Commission, and in exercise of the powers under Clause 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which is impugned in this petition.

Writ Petition No. 2702/2000 : The elections to the Gram Panchayat Aland, Taluka Malkapur, District Buldhana, were held on 9-6-2000. The petitioner contested the election from Ward No. 1, which is a multimember ward comprising of three seats; one reserved for Other Backward Class category, one reserved for Woman General category and the remaining one for open category. On 10-6-2000, the Returning Officer declared that the petitioner was elected from open/general category in accordance with Rule 34(1) of the Rules of 1959, but immediately thereafter, issued a corrigendum on 10-6-2000 itself, modified the result and declared respondent No. 5 Gopal Mitharam Warade, as having declared elected from the open/general category, instead of the petitioner relying on the same notification issued by the State Election Commission, and in exercise of powers under section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which is impugned in this petition.

Writ Petition No. 2780/2000 : The elections to the Gram Panchayat Malegaon were held on 9-6-2000. The petitioner contested the election from Ward No. 4, which is a multimember constituency comprising of three seats; one seat reserved for Woman belonging to S.T. category, on reserved for Other Backward Class c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(Bom) 832

Cases Referred (5)