Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 1576
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Arun R. Pedneker, J.
Sow. Laxmibai Vishwanath Gaware - Petitioner
Versus
The State Co-operative Election Authority, MS Pune through its Secretary - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12477 Of 2022
Decided On : 12-12-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi.
For the Respondents: Mr. V.H. Dighe, Mr. D.R. Kale.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the qualification prescribed for contesting an election cannot be altered after the election process has started.
Headnote:
Agricultural Produce Market Committee - Eligibility to Contest Election - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 13 - The court discussed the amendment in Section 13 of the Act of 1963, which gave right to contest the elections of APMC to all agriculturists, residing in the area of operation of the APMC, irrespective of whether their names appear in the voters list. The court highlighted the conflict between the amended provision and Rule 9 of the Election Rules of 2017, and concluded that the amendment would not be applicable to the ongoing elections of APMC Vasmat.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of her nomination form for the election of APMC, Vasmat, from the reserved VJNT category, citing the amendment in Section 13 of the Act of 1963, which allowed all agriculturists to contest the elections of APMC, irrespective of their voter list inclusion.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the amendment in Section 13 of the Act of 1963 would not be applicable to the ongoing elections of APMC Vasmat, as the election process had commenced under the un-amended provisions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility of the petitioner to contest the APMC election, considering the conflict between the amended provision in Section 13 of the Act of 1963 and Rule 9 of the Election Rules of 2017.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that although a candidate can be qualified on the date of filing of the nomination, the qualification prescribed for contesting the election cannot be altered after the election process has started.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petition was mentioned at 2.30 p.m. on 08.12.2022 and notices were issued by this Court to the respondents. The petition is taken up for hearing on 09.12.2022 at 10.30 a.m.
2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 District Election Officer (APMC) and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies Hingoli in Appeal No.2/2022 and the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 - Returning Officer, Agricultural Produce Market Committee [for short’ AMPC’], Vasmat, rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner to contest the election of APMC, Vasmat from VJNT Category. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as under:
3.[a] The respondent no.3 published the election programme for APMC, Vasmat on 17.11.2022. As per the said election programme, the nominations were to be filed on 17th November, 2022 to 23rd November, 2022 up to 3.00 p.m.
b] The State of Maharashtra issued an Ordinance on 22.11.2022 to amend the provisions of Section 13 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulations) Act, 1963 [for short ‘the Act of 1963’], giving right to contest the elections of APMC to all agriculturists, residing in the area of operation of the APMC although the agriculturist may not be voters in the voter list of the concerned APMC. As per the said Ordinance, the amendment in the Act of 1963 is given effect from the date of Ordinance dated 22.11.2022.
c] The petitioner submits that in view of the said amendment, the petitioner being an agriculturist and residing at local area of operation of Vasmat APMC, is eligible and qualified to contest the election of the APMC, Vasmat through the name of the petitioner is not included in the final voters list of APMC, Vasmat.
d] It is the contention of the petitioner that on 23.11.2022 the petitioner submitted her nomination form for the election of APMC, Vasmat, from the reserved VJNT category. However, on 25.11.2022, the respondent no.3 rejected the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground that the name of the petitioner is not included in the final voter list as required under Rule 9 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Election to Committee) Rules, 2017 [for short ‘Election Rules of 2017’].
e] Thereafter on 28.11.2022, the petitioner filed Appeal bearing No. 2/2022 before the respondent no.2 – District Election Officer APMC and District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Hingoli under Rule 27 (1) of the Election Rules of 2017, challenging the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 - Returning Officer contending that as per the amendment in Section 13 (1) of the Act of 1963, by Ordinance dated 22.11.2022, the petitioner is eligible and qualified to contest the election of APMC, Vasmat, though her name is not included in the final voters list.
f] The petitioner contends that the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, by order dated 06.12.2022, without considering the effect of amendment in Section 13 (1) of the Act of 1963 observing that though the Act is amended but the Election Rules of 2017 are not amended suitably. Against the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the authorities below i.e. the Returning Officer as well as the Appellate Authority has non-suited the petitioner on the ground that her name is not reflected in the final voters list. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the amendment in Section 13 (a) of the Act of 1963, the requirement of name being in the final voters list to be eligible to contest elections of APMC is done away with, however, the corresponding change is not made to Rule 9 of the Election Rules of 2017. Rule 9 provides for qualification of the candidates and one of the qualifications is that the candidate’s name has to be in the final voters list. The petitioner
