IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S.Chandurkar, M.S.Jawalkar, JJ.
Yogita – Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Election Commission – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3249/2021
Decided On : 25-03-2022
Election - Gram Panchayat - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, Sec. 15 - The court declared the petitioner as elected Member of Gram Panchayat Marda, Taluka Warora, District Chandrapur from Ward No.1, and set aside the notification declaring the fifth respondent as elected. The court allowed the petitioner to challenge the election of the fourth respondent as Sarpanch and ninth respondent as Upa-Sarpanch.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a nomination form for the post of Member under the category of Backward Class of Citizens from Ward No.1. The fifth respondent also filed her nomination form under the same category. The nomination form of the fifth respondent was initially rejected but was later accepted. The fifth respondent was declared elected in the elections. The petitioner challenged the action of the Returning Officer for not declaring her as elected unopposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to a declaration that she was elected as Member of the Gram Panchayat and set aside the notification declaring the fifth respondent as elected. The court allowed the petitioner to challenge the election of the fourth respondent as Sarpanch and ninth respondent as Upa-Sarpanch.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the nomination forms, the right to be declared elected unopposed, and the consequences of the dismissal of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought, and the consequences of the dismissal of the writ petition should follow, declaring the petitioner as elected and setting aside the notification declaring the fifth respondent as elected.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute, declaring the petitioner as elected Member of Gram Panchayat Marda, Taluka Warora, District Chandrapur from Ward No.1, and setting aside the notification declaring the fifth respondent as elected. The petitioner was allowed to challenge the election of the fourth respondent as Sarpanch and ninth respondent as Upa-Sarpanch.
JUDGMENT
A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. On 15/12/2020, a notification was published with a view to hold elections of Members of Gram Panchayat Marda. Seven members were to be elected from three Wards. The petitioner on 29/12/2020 filed her nomination form for the post of Member under the category of Backward Class of Citizens from Ward No.1. The fifth respondent also filed her nomination form under the same category. There were thus two nomination forms that were filed for contesting elections in the category of Backward Class of Citizens from Ward No.1. On scrutiny, the petitioner's nomination form was found to be valid while the nomination form of the fifth respondent came to be rejected. The fifth respondent being aggrieved by the order rejecting her nomination form filed Writ Petition No.116 of 2021. On 4/1/2021 the learned Single Judge while issuing notice in the writ petition granted ad-interim relief and directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination form of the fifth respondent, the same being made subject to the result of the writ petition. Consequently, the nomination form of the fifth respondent was accepted. In the elections held on 15/1/2021 the fifth respondent was declared elected having secured more votes than the petitioner. Notification dtd. 29/1/2021 indicating the names of elected candidates was published by the Collector.
3. On 9/2/2021, Writ Petition No.116 of 2021 was held to be not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade & Others Versus State and Election Commission & Others decided on 13/1/2021. Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable this Court directed that the consequence of dismissal of the writ petition would follow. In view of dismissal of writ petition, the petitioner on 10/2/2021 issued a communication to the Returning Officer and requested that she be declared as elected unopposed since there was no other candidate besides the fifth respondent who had contested the elections. The petitioner also prayed that she be permitted to participate in the election for the post of Sarpanch. That request was reiterated on 12/2/2021. The petitioner however was not permitted to participate in the election of Sarpanch and consequently the fifth respondent was declared elected on the post of Sarpanch. Being aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the action of the Returning Officer of not declaring her as elected unopposed in the category of Backward Class of Citizens. In support of the reliefs sought in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Salma Bi Syed Noor Attar Versus The Collector, Buldana in Writ Petition No.4031 of 2021 dtd. 8/2/2022 which arose in similar facts as well as the decisions in Baby Samuel Versus Tukaram Laxman Sable & Others [1996(1) Mh.L.J. (SC) 9], Baburao Vishwanath Mathpati & etc. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others [1996(1) Mh.L.J. 366] and Baburao Kalu Koli Versus State of Maharashtra & Others [2008(2) Mh.L.J. 203]. It was prayed that the petitioner be declared elected as Member of the Gram Panchayat.
4. Reply has been filed by the fifth respondent opposing the prayers made in the writ petition. It has been stated that the writ petition was not maintainable as the relief of declaration of being elected unopposed as sought by the petitioner could only be granted in an Election Petition. Under Sec. 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act of 1959') the remedy of seeking such declaration could be sought. It is further stated that the elections to the Gram Panchayat having been held and the fifth respondent having been declared elected after securing majority of the votes her election was required to be set aside by invoking the statutory remedy and not by approaching this Court under Article 226
Baburao Kalu Koli Versus State of Maharashtra
Baburao Vishwanath Mathpati and Etc. Versus State of Maharashtra
Gawaji Alias Gawaja Sawleram Sarode Versus State of Maharashtra
AI
The principle of restitution and entitlement to reliefs sought based on the consequences of the dismissal of the writ petition.
Election – Rejected nomination paper - Maintainability of Petition - Petition would not be maintainable against an order rejecting a nomination paper - Section 15 confers very wide powers on trial Ju....
The rejection of a nomination for a village panchayat election based on statutory qualifications is not remediable through a writ petition due to the bar under Article 243(O)(b) of the Constitution o....
Point of Law : Section 11B of the Act provides for election of Pradhan. Section 11D of the Act makes certain further prohibitions in respect of the persons who are seeking election as a Pradhan.
The election procedure mandates strict adherence to nomination rules, and the High Court can intervene even when alternative remedies exist, acknowledging the violation of rights of the unopposed can....
A candidate cannot be declared elected merely based on receiving the second highest votes unless they prove eligibility under relevant laws following disqualification of another candidate.
The election of a candidate can be declared void if they fail to disclose material information in their nomination, affecting the election outcome, as per the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act.
Mandatory disclosure of information by contesting candidates in Panchayat Raj elections, and the consequences of non-disclosure or suppression of information.
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.