Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B.PARDIWALA, VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, JJ.
MAHESHBHAI BHIKHABHAI VASAVA - Appellant
Versus
ELECTION COMMISSION - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6267 of 2021
Decided On : 14-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 243ZG, 31-C, 329-A, 368 and 323-A - Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1994 - Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971 - Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975 - Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 - Election - Scheduled Tribe Candidate - Whether present writ application is maintainable in view of bar of Article 243ZG of Constitution of India and Section 14 of Act, 1963 - Whether declaration of result could be said to be illegal and contrary to provisions of Act, 1963 and Rules, 1994 - Whether candidate’s claim for being eligible to be elected from a reserved seat is accepted or not - Whether respondent No.4, was treated as a general woman candidate or a scheduled tribe candidate.
Finding of the Court:
Decision rendered by this Court has been relied upon by Mr. Vaghela to make good his case that in case on hand, declaration of result could not be said to be in accordance with Rule 63 of Rules, referred to above – Court is afraid, court is not in a position to agree with such submission of Mr. Vaghela – Court have explained what would have been the position had respondent No.4 been treated as a candidate classified as general woman candidate and what would be position having treated respondent No.4 as a candidate classified in category of scheduled tribe – Court is of view that in case on hand, declaration of result could be said to be in accordance with Rule 63 of Rules - Election Officer first declared result of seat reserved for scheduled caste woman; thereafter Election Officer declared result of seat reserved for woman of general category; thereafter for seat reserved for scheduled tribe and in last, result of unreserved seat was declared - If respondent No.4 would not have been classified as a scheduled tribe candidate, then she would have been put or classified as general woman candidate and in such circumstances, she could not have been declared as elected because a lady by name Shahenurbibi Shahrukhkhan Pathan secured 1054 votes against 887 votes secured by respondent No.4.
Result: Application rejected.
JUDGMENT :
J.B.PARDIWALA, J.
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Petition.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the election result of ward no.5 for the seat reserved for schedule tribe candidate declaring Respondent No.4 as elected as illegal and further be pleased to declare the petitioner as elected from ward no.5 seat reserved for schedule tribe candidate as Councilor for Rajpipla Nagarpalika and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to modify the election result of ward no.5 of Rajpipla Nagarpalika accordingly.
(C ) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.4 from functioning as Councilor of Rajpipla Nagarpalika from ward no.4.
(D) Any other and further relief/s that may be deem, just and proper may kindly granted in the interest of justice.”
2. The facts, giving rise to this writ application may be summarized as under;
2.1 The writ applicant is a resident of Rajpipla Town, District: Narmada and is a voter in the Ward No.5 of the said town. The writ applicant contested the election for the post of Councillor from the ward No.5 on a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe.
2.2 The respondent No.4 is also a resident of Rajpipla, and she too contested the election to the post of Councillor from the ward No.5.
2.3 It is the case of the writ applicant that he contested the election on the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe, whereas the respondent No.4 contested on the seat reserved for woman in General Category.
2.4 The election was held on 28.02.2021 and the results were declared on 02.03.2021. The votes secured by the first 09 candidates were as under;
| Sr. No. | Name of Candidates | Affiliated to the Political Party | Total votes received |
| 1. | Jayshriben Kamleshbhai Solanki | Bhartiya Janta Party | 857 |
| 2. | Pragneshkumar Mahendrakumar Rami | Bhartiya Janta Party | 776 |
| 3. | Maheshbhai Bhikhabhai Vasava (Writ Applicant) | Bhartiya Jantra Party | 846 |
| 4. | Muntzirkhan Mahebubkhan Shaikh | Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress | 846 |
| 5. | Vanitaben Kamalbhai Chauhan | Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress | 868 |
| 6. | Shahenurbibi Shahrukhkhan Pathan | Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress | 1054 |
| 7. | Sapnaben Rameshbhai Vasava (Respondent No.4) | Bhartiya Janta Party | 887 |
| 8. | Sanjaybhai Kadujibhai Vasava | Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress | 667 |
| 9. | Mohammed Hanif Safi Mohammed Fakir | Bhartiya Tribal PartY | 101 |
2.5 It is the case of the writ applicant that on the seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe, he secured the highest number of votes, i.e, 776. His grievance is that despite the fact that he secured the highest number of votes on the seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe, the Returning Officer declared the respondent No.4 as the winner on the seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe despite the fact that the respondent No.4 contested the election on the seat reserved for woman in General Category.
2.6 In other words, the case put up by the writ applicant is that the respondent No.4 having contested the election on a seat reserved for woman in General Category could not have been declared as elected on the seat reserved for the scheduled tribe.
2.7 In such circumstances, referred to above, the writ applicant first lodged his objections before the Collector, Narmada vide application dated 02.03.2021 followed by a second application dated 03.03.2021.
2.8 It appears that ultimately the writ applicant was informed that there was no substance in the grievance redressed by him vide the two applications referred to above and vide the communication in writing dated 02.08
SupremeToday
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
