Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Techi Atum, So of Late Techi Tad – Appellant
Versus
State Election Commission and Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 274 of 2023
Decided on : 16-08-2024
Election - Disqualification - Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1997 Sections 57, 108, 109, 120 - The Court interpreted the provisions regarding disqualification for dual enrollment in electoral rolls, concluding that such dual enrollment does not automatically disqualify a candidate from contesting elections under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent No. 4 to the Zila Parishad, claiming disqualification due to dual enrollment in electoral rolls. The Election Commission accepted both nominations, leading to a contested election where the respondent No. 4 won.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act do not disqualify a candidate for being enrolled in more than one electoral roll, aligning with precedents set by the Supreme Court.
Issues: Whether the nomination of the respondent No. 4 was valid despite dual enrollment in electoral rolls and whether the election petition was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that dual enrollment does not disqualify a candidate under the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, as the relevant sections do not prescribe such disqualification.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4 and Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for the respondent No1 and Ms. R. Basar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for setting aside and quashing the judgment and order dated 15.05.2023, passed by learned Member, Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Tribunal at Yupia in Election Petition (PR) 03/2021 with a further direction to set aside and quash the election of the respondent No. 4 to the No. 11 Batt Ganga Zila Parishad Constituency (for short concerned ZPC).
3. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition can be recorded as follows:
II. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 submitted nomination, offering their candidature for the concerned Zila Parishad.
III. On the date of scrutiny of the nomination paper, on 04.12.2020, the petitioner filed a complaint alleging disqualification of the respondent No. 4 to be chosen to fill the concerned seat having his name registered in two electoral constituencies i.e. in the electoral roll of the concerned Zila Parishad as well as under Chakha So Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, a prayer for cancellation of nomination was made.
IV. The respondent No. 3 rejected such contention and published a list of validly nominated candidate vide notification dated 04.12.2020, (for short impugned notification) wherein both the nomination of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 was found valid. Thereafter a complaint was lodged to the District Election Officer on the same day by the petitioner but to of no avail.
V. Election to the concerned ZPC was held on 22.12.2020 and after counting, the respondent No. 4 was declared to be duly elected to fill the seat in the concerned ZPC by a notification dated 26.12.2020. The respondent No. 4 received 1042 valid votes and petitioner received 892 valid votes.
VI. The petitioner assailed the impugned order, dated 04.12.2020, whereby the nomination of the respondent No. 4 was accepted. The further prayer made in the election petition was to suspend the candidature of the respondent No. 4 for election to the concerned ZPC.
VII. The fundamental ground of such challenge is violation of provision of Section 109 of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1997 (for short APPR Act, 1997) and violation of Rule 12 (2) of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2001 (for short Election Rules, 2001). The further ground was that respondent No. 4 was disqualified to be elected in terms of Section 57 of the Act, 1997 inasmuch as in view of mandate Section 108, the respondent No. 4 is disqualified having dual enrolment in voter list of two constituencies.
4. The respondents filed their written statement and took a stand, in substance that dual enlistment in voter list in two constituencies cannot be a ground either for rejection of nomination or for declaring an election invalid. The parties had also laid evidence in support of their contentions.
5. The learned Tribunal framed two issues which are quoted herein below:
II. Whether the nomination paper of private respondent No. 4 as a candidate for the post of Zila Parishad Member, 11-Bath Ganga Zila Parishad Constituency, is liable to be rejected, for having enrolment his name in two electoral rolls of Zila Parishad Constituency?
6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal dismissed the election petition and made the following conclusions:
The finality of the electoral roll and the inability to challenge its validity in an election petition.
The Election Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain an Election O.P. filed under Sec. 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, and the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to disprove ....
The District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to remove a Panchayat member based solely on disqualification claims; such matters must be handled through an election petition post-election results, adh....
A writ petition challenging an election on grounds of disqualification is not maintainable when a specific statutory remedy via an election petition exists, as Article 243-O bars judicial interferenc....
Challenges to an election based on a candidate's disqualification existing at the time of nomination must exclusively be decided through an election petition before a competent tribunal. Administrati....
Point of Law : In our view, on proper interpretation of the Statute, after election process has come to an end, the State Election Commissioner, District Magistrate and the Election Officer cease to ....
A candidate can challenge the election of another under Section 44-A of the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, and disqualification occurs for having a third child born after the statutory cutoff date.
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.
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
