SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Bom) 2321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M. S. SONAK, J.
Vaijayata Deepak Warke and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State Election Commission and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.11547, 11306 & 11037 of 2015
Decided On : 11-12-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade for Petitioners in all Writ Petitions
Mrs. D.S. Mondkar i/b Mr. S.B. Shetye for Respondent No.1 in all petitions
Ms Vaishal Nimbalkar, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 11547 of 2015
Ms M.S. Bane, BPanel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 11306 of 2015
Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 11307 of 2015
Mr. P.D. Dalvi, Amicus Curiae

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and should be relegated to avail them.

Headnote:

Election Disqualification - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Section 14B, Section 16(2) - The judgment discusses the disqualification of petitioners under Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for failure to lodge election expenses and the availability of alternate remedies under Section 16(2) of the Act. The court held that the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Act and should be relegated to avail them.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners contested elections to the Gram Panchayat but failed to get elected. They were served with notices for disqualification under Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for failure to lodge election expenses. The Collector disqualified the petitioners, rendering them ineligible for contesting elections or being members of any Gram Panchayat for five years.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Act and should be relegated to avail them. The court held that the petitioners in each petition have alternate remedies under the Act and should avail them.

Issues: The issues involved were the disqualification of the petitioners under Section 14B of the Act and the availability of alternate remedies under Section 16(2) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners have alternate remedies provided under the Act and should be relegated to avail them. The court emphasized that the petitioners should avail the alternate remedies available to them under the Act.

Final Decision: The court discharged the rule in each petition and granted the petitioners liberty to institute appeals/petitions before the Divisional Commissioner within a specified period. The interim order granted by the court was to operate for a specified period and until the final disposal of the appeals/petitions by the Divisional Commissioner.

JUDGMENT :

1] Rule, in each of these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.


2] The final hearing in these petitions concluded on 3 December 2015 and the judgment was reserved. However, as the learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that the last date for filing of nomination for election to the Panchayat was 4 December 2015, an interim order was made staying the disqualification incurred by the Petitioners. The interim order dated 3 December 2015 reads thus:

1. The final hearing in these petitions has just been concluded. The Judgment is reserved. However, the learned Counsel for petitioners points out that elections to the Panchayat are scheduled shortly and the last date for filing nominations is 04/12/2015. Accordingly, it is necessary to make an interim order.

2. The petitioners in these petitions have been disqualified under Section 14B of The Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 ('said Act') for failure to lodge account of elections taken place within time and manner required by the State Election Commission. The case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.11306 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.11307 of 2015 is that they had, in fact, lodged the account of their election expenses with the Returning Officer within a period of 30 days from the date of election i.e. 27/11/2012. However, notices as to why action should not be taken against them under Section 14B of the said Act were issued after the period of two years i.e. on 26/11/2014, and at that stage, they did not have any ready proof. Along with the petitions, however, they produced a document entitled 'Receipt' signed by the Returning Officer, which at least prima-facie, indicate that that the petitioners had, in fact, lodged their account of election expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of the result of the elections. Such document is at Exh.B, page 12 in Writ Petition No.11306 of 2015. In fact, the petitioners in Writ Petition No.11306 of 2015 were not ultimately elected at the election and the learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that, that is an additional reason as to why they may not have maintained any copy of the account of election expenses, though the same was lodged within the prescribed period. If the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act are perused, then mere non-filing of account of election expenses does not operate as a disqualification. The State Election Commission, whose powers have now been delegated to the Collector, has to be satisfied that the failure to lodge the account of election expenses within the time prescribed was without good reason or justification. The Collector, when making the impugned order, at least prima-facie does not seem to have adverted to these aspects.

4. Insofar as the petitioners in Writ Petition No.11547 of 2015 are concerned, they claim that all of them were declared elected from their respective wards 'unopposed'. It is the case of the petitioners that since there was no elections or contest insofar as they are concerned, they were not required to file their election expenses. Reliance has been placed upon the decision rendered by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in case of Kacho Mohd. Ali Khan Vs. Shri Kushok Bakula, Vol. XXXIV E.L.R. 323 in respect of the contention that an unopposed candidate is not required to lodge any account of election expenses.

5. In view of the aforesaid, case is made out for grant of interim relief. In several matters of this nature, interim relief has been granted by this Court pending hearing of appeal by the Divisional Commissioner.

4. Accordingly, the impugned orders by which the petitioners have been disqualified, are stayed until the final disposal of the petitions.

5. All concerned to act on basis of authenticated copy of this order.”

3] The Petitioners in Writ Petition NO. 11306 of 2015 had contested the for elections to the Gram Panchayat of Village – Parite, TalKarveer, Dist. Kol



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top