Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Chandrachud D.Y. (Dr.), J.
Indumati Laxman Bhakare .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 7949, 7970 9816 of 2003, decided on 1/17-3-2004.
Advocates appeared :
P.K. Dhakephalkar with M.A. Patil, in W.P. Nos. 7949, 7970, for petitioner in W.P. No. 9816/2003, for respondent No. 1.
P.K. Khemani, A.G.P., in W.P. Nos. 7949 7970/2003, for respondent Nos. 1 2 in W.P. No. 9816/2003, for respondent Nos. 2 3.
K.Y. Mandlik, in W.P. Nos. 7949 7970/2003, for respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 9816/2003, for respondent No. 5.
P.B. Shah with A.B. Avhad, in W.P. Nos. 7949 7970/2003, for respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 9816/2003, for petitioner.
B.G. Tangsali, in W.P. Nos. 7949, 7970 9816/2003, for respondent Nos. 4 6.
M.A. Patil, in W.P. No. 7970/2003, for respondent No. 7.
Election Petition - Disqualification - Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - Section 16(1)(i), Section 21(1)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the dismissal of two election petitions challenging the election of the President of the Municipal Council of Sangola on a seat reserved for women. The petitions were filed by a defeated candidate and a voter of the Constituency. The elected candidate also filed a petition to challenge the decision that she had incurred a disqualification under section 16(1)(i) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the elected candidate was not qualified to become a Councillor under section 16(1)(i) of the Act due to her husband's contracts with the Municipal Council, which led to a conflict of interest and duty.
Issues: The issues included the disqualification of the elected candidate under section 16(1)(i) of the Act, the rejection of the election petitions, and the eligibility of the petitioner to file the election petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disqualification under section 16(1)(i) was attracted due to the elected candidate's interest in the work done by order of the Council, and that the rejection of the election petitions based on the lack of objection during nomination scrutiny was erroneous. The court also affirmed the voter's eligibility to file the election petition despite a minor discrepancy in the electoral roll.
Final Decision: The election petitions were allowed, the election of the returned candidate was quashed, and the petition challenging the finding of disqualification was dismissed. The judgment and order of the Additional District Judge were quashed and set aside.
2. On 14th January, 2003, the Additional District Judge, Pandharpur, dismissed two elections petitions challenging the election of Chhaya Arun Patil, as President of the Municipal Council of Sangola on a seat reserved for women. One of the two election petitions was filed by a defeated candidate, while the other was by a voter of the Constituency. Aggrieved by the rejection of the election petitions these two elections petitioners have moved this Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. The third writ petition has been filed by the elected candidate in order to challenge the decisions of the Additional District Judge in so far as he held that she had incurred a disqualification under section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ("the Act"). Though the trial Court came to the conclusion that a disqualification had been incurred, the election petitions came to be rejected solely on the ground that the validity of the nomination of the elected candidate had not been objected to before the Returning Officer.
3. The election programme to the post of the President of the Municipal Council of Sangola was declared on 2nd November, 2001. The last date for submission of nominations was 9th November, 2001. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was conducted on 13th November, 2001 upon which a final list of voters was punished. The last date for the withdrawal of nominations was 20th November, 2001; the list of candidates was published on 21st November, 2001 and voting was held on 2nd December, 2001. The results of the election were declared on 3rd December, 2001. The seat of the President was reserved for women. The fifth respondent in Writ Petition 7949 and 7970 of 2003 was declared elected. The name of the returned candidate was published in the Official Gazette on 6th December, 2001. Both the election petitions were instituted within a period of ten days thereafter and, therefore, within the period of limitation prescribed by section 21 of the Act.
4. Before setting out the factual basis for the contention that the elected candidate was not qualified to become a Councillor, it would be appropriate to refer briefly to the provisions of section 16(1)(i) of the Act with reference to which the averments in the elections petitions were founded. Section 16(1)(i) provides thus :
"16. Disqualifications for becoming Councillor.-(1) No person shall be qualified to become a Councillor whether by election or nomination who,-
(i) save as hereinafter provided, has directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work done by order of a Council or in any contract with or under or by or an behalf of a Council;"
Section 21(1) stipulates that no election or nomination of a Councillor may be called in question, expect by a petition presented to the District Court by a candidate at the election or by any person entitled to vote at the election, within ten days from the date of publication of the names of the Councillors in the Official Gazette under section 19 or 20, as the case may be.
5. In the present case, the husband of the elected candidate had been awarded various contracts by the Municipal Council of Sangola. These contracts were in respect of diverse items of civil work, maintenance of roads, sewerage facilities and other Municipal work. According to the election petitioners, a total 19 different categories of work had been awarded to him at a cost in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs. 9th November, 2001 was the date on which the elected candidate filed her nomination. By a letter written on 9th November, 2001 to the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, the spouse of the elected candidate recorded that in pursuance of the contracts which had been award
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
