Back
2012 (1) ALL MR 716
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
A.V. NIRGUDE
Sheshrao Trimbakro Pati & Others
Versus
Trimbakrao Shrirangrao Bhise & Others
WRIT PETITION NOs. 2905 OF 2011 & 2906 OF 2011
Decided on : 18-07-2011
The petitioners are unable to plead ignorance to the fact that their party has regional committee which is known as Pradesh Congress Committee. They admitted that Shri Manikrao Thakare is the President of the State unit of their party. They are unable to question the party’s decision to send an observer to Latur for this election. The observer has said that sending such observer is a usual practice of the party. It is obvious that due to intra party rivalry the members of the party, are required to be disciplined. For maintaining such discipline, an observer’s presence is necessary. When Shri Ghorpade came to Latur with the brief of the President, the petitioners raised objection to his presence or authority to preside over meetings of the party held for deciding the strategy of the election. It is also on record that the party members including the petitioners ultimately agreed to accept the names of such councillors who would be named as official candidates by the party. So when the names were announced, they could not have defied the decision of the party and could not have raised issue of authority, its delegation to the observer of District President etc. Neither they raised such objection then. All these defences are untenable and unavailable to the petitioners if raised belatedly. In such situation, the members of the same party in my view, cannot question the observer’s authority and the Court would also not go beyond his word in search of an appropriate provision in the party constitution.
There is variance between the pleading and the evidence that was lead in support of the complainant’s case. The complainant stated that the political parties observer had come to Latur to ensure smooth elections and that he had issued the necessary directions and that he declared the names of the official candidates and even issued written whip under his signature. While recording evidence, the respondent/complainants more or less adhered to this stand.
There is one more feature of this case which clearly shows that the petitioners were acting the interest of their own party and had made up their mind for defying the directions of the party. They cannot feign ignorance to the party’s decision to name Timbak Bhise and Dilip Patil as party’s official candidates. If we see the pattern of voting, it becomes clear that the petitioners not only defied the party s dir u the time of voting but they ensured that the other councilors belonging to other parties would vote for them. This fact clearly shows that the petitioners since beginning had decided to contest the election and if necessary garner support from councilors from other political parties even though Dhumal and Sambhaji Patil would not get party’s official candidature.
1. Both these writ petitions are challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Collector, Latur dated 08/04/2011 holding that the petitioners stood disqualified as members of Zilla Parishad, Latur.
2. The facts leading to this litigation in short can be stated as under.
3. The petitioners are members of Indian National Congress, a national level political party and as its official candidates, were elected as councilors of Zilla Parishad, Latur in 2007.
4. The elections for the post of President and Vice President were due in 2009. A meeting was called on 02/12/2009 for the election. Fifty Seven councilors of Zilla Parishad attended this meeting. Out of them, 31 councilors including petitioners belonged to Indian National Congress, five councilors belong to Nationalist Congress party. (Indian National Conress and Nationalist Congress party jointly contested the election of Zilla Parishad.)
5. Time for filing of the nominations for the posts was given to the councilors between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on that date. Accordingly, number of councilors filed their nominations for the post of President and Vice President. Two amongst the petitioners namely Pandit Dhumal and Sambhaji Patil filed their nominations for the post of President and Vide President respectively. The respondents Trimbak Bhise and Dilip Patil also filed their nominations for the post of President and Vice President. All these councilors belonged to Indian National Congress.
6. On that day, at 3.00 p.m., the meeting was convened. First, the presiding officer scrutinised the nominations and found most of the nominations valid. The announcement of valid nominations was made at about 3.20 p.m. and the Presiding Officer allowed 15 minutes time for withdrawal of the nominations. During those 15 minutes, above mentioned Trimbak Bhise made an announcement in the meeting stating that as the leader of Zilla Parishad party of Indian National Congress, he was authorised to make an announcement that the political party had issued directions that the councilors belonging to his party should vote in favour of official candidates of the party by name Trimbak Bhise and Dilip Patil. To this, the above mentioned Pandit Dhumal replied in the meeting that the whip issued by party has not been received by some of the members of the party. Trimbak Bhise then announced as the leader of the Zilla Parishad party the whip of the party would be served on all the members before commencement of voting.
7. Thereafter, most of the candidates withdrew their nominations except the above mentioned four candidates. For the post of President, Pandit Dhumal and Trimbak Bhise remained contesting candidates and for the post of Vice president, Dilip Patil and Sambhaji Patil remained the contesting candidates. The election was held by show of hands and it was found that petitioners Pandit Dhumal and Sambhaji Patil could secure 33 votes, out of 57 which included the votes of the twelve petitioners and were declared elected.
8. In view of this, the defeated candidates namely Trimbak Bhise and Dilip Patil moved their complaint under rule 6 read with section 3 and 7 of Maharashtra Local Authorities Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986 and rules made thereunder in 1987 (henceforth be referred to as the ‘Act and the rules’). They narrated their case as under.
9. They stated that the Indian National Congress Party had declared their names as official candidates of the party for the post of President and Vice President on 02/12/2009 (the day when the election took place). Accordingly, they filed nominations. They say that to their surprise, they found that their own party men Pandit Dhumal and Sambhaji Patil had filed nominations against them. They said that they requested them to withdraw their candidature, because they were not the official candidates of the party. They further narrated that the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress committee had deputed one Gulabrao Ghorpade as the observer fo
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
