IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S. J. Kathawalla, Vinay Joshi, JJ.
ATUL BHASKAR MORE - PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS
W. P. (St.) No. 97093 of 2020
Decided on : 11-01-2021
Election - Formation of Wards and Reservation - Article 243-K, Article 243-O, Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs. Collector, Satara - The court dismissed the petition challenging the formation of wards and reservation of seats for village panchayats, citing Article 243-O which bars interference by courts in electoral matters. The court also referred to the decision in Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs. Collector, Satara, which held that objections to the delimitation of Panchayat area or the formation of constituencies cannot be entertained by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the formation of wards and reservation of each ward in a village Panchayat. The objections raised by the petitioner were rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector, following which the petitioner filed a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it cannot be entertained due to the provisions of Article 243-O and the decision in Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs. Collector, Satara. The court also clarified that the petitioner can pursue the remedy provided under section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959.
Issues: Challenge to the formation of wards and reservation of seats, objections raised by the petitioner, dismissal of objections by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector, and the timing of the petition in relation to the scheduled elections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cannot entertain challenges to the formation of wards and reservation of seats for village Panchayats due to the provisions of Article 243-O and the decision in Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs. Collector, Satara. Additionally, the court should not intervene to stop the election process if the election is imminent or well underway.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. :— By the above Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the formation of wards and reservation of each wards in Gram Panchayat Chale, Taluka – Pandharpur, District – Solapur and the Order passed by the Collector on 23rd October, 2020, dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. The reliefs sought in the above Writ Petition are as follows :
(c) This Hon’ble Court by virtue of his appropriate order be pleased to direct to the respondent No. 2 learned Collector Solapur to reconsider the proceeding in respect of formation of the wards and the reservation filed to the respective wards of village Chale, Tal – Pandharpur, DistSolapur pursuant to the notice issued under Rule 5(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Rules, 1966.
(d) This Hon’ble Court by virtue of his appropriate order be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 23-10-2020 and the proclamation issued under Rule 5(1) in type A (Schedule 1) passed and issued by the Collector Solapur.”
3. The facts which are relevant for deciding the reliefs sought in the above Writ Petition, are in brief set out hereunder :
3.2 The objections and suggestions with regard to formation of wards and reservation of seats were invited by the Tahsildar between 7th February, 2020 to 14th February, 2020, and the objections and suggestions received were forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer (‘SDO’) on 20th February, 2020, for hearing.
3.3 The petitioner filed his objection with the SDO on 7th February, 2020.
3.4 The SDO gave a hearing to the petitioner on 29th February, 2020 and rejected his objections on the same day, i.e. on 29th February, 2020, on the ground that the objections raised by him are vague.
3.5 The SDO after hearing the persons who had submitted their objections and suggestions, sent his report/proposal to the Collector on 11th March, 2020, for his final decision on the formation of wards and reservation of seats.
3.6 The petitioner filed an Appeal before the Collector though there is no provision for fling such Appeal. However, the Collector dismissed his Appeal confirming the findings of the SDO, that his objections are vague.
3.7 In the meantime, elections were suspended due to the pandemic.
3.8 The order of suspension of election was revoked on 20th October, 2020 after which the final notification was published on 2nd November, 2020. Thereafter, the State Election Commissioner declared the election programme on 11th December, 2020 and the District Collector was to publish the election programme on 15th December, 2020. As per Schedule ‘A’ to the said programme, nominations were to be filed between 23rd December to 30th December, 2020; Scrutiny of nominations was fixed on 31st December, 2020; Withdrawal of nominations was allowed upto 4th January, 2021 by 3.00 p.m.; Allotment of symbols and declaration of names of candidates were to be provided on 4th January, 2021 after 3.00 p.m.; and the voting was fixed on 15th January, 2021.
3.9 The above Petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court on 12th November, 2020.
4. The Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 – State Election Commission has submitted that all steps to conduct the election have been taken by the Election Commission. The ballot papers are pri
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.