SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Raj) 1723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, J.
District Election Officer, Churu Sub Divisional Officer, Churu, Through Ratan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Ushman Ali - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3061 of 2019
Decided On : 27-11-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Dinesh Pal Singh, Advocate, S.G. Ojha, Advocate

Civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain petitions challenging the validity of nominations for municipal elections.

Headnote:

MUNICIPAL ELECTION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - ARTICLE 243ZG OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SECTION 30 AND 31 OF THE RAJASTHAN MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 2009 - SUMMARY: The Rajasthan High Court held that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the validity of a nomination for a municipal election. The court noted that Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India and Sections 30 and 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 bar civil courts from adjudicating upon electoral matters, including the validity of nominations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the District Election Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Churu, challenged an order of the District Judge, Churu, which had set aside the petitioner's order rejecting the nomination of the respondent, Usman Ali, for contesting an election in the Ward No.51, Municipality, Churu.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the controversy posed was a pre-election dispute. The court noted that Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India and Sections 30 and 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 bar civil courts from adjudicating upon electoral matters, including the validity of nominations.

Issues: Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the validity of a nomination for a municipal election.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India and Sections 30 and 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, which bar civil courts from adjudicating upon electoral matters, including the validity of nominations.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Judge. The court also granted the respondent liberty to challenge the result of the election before the Election Tribunal by filing an election petition.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the petitioner District Election Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Churu for assailing the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Churu in Case No.35/2019 whereby, the order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the District Election Officer, SDO, was set aside and the nomination filed by the respondent Usman Ali for contesting the election in the Ward No.51, Municipality, Churu was declared to be valid.

2. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order as well as the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel Shri Dinesh Pal Singh, representing the appellant fervently contended that the District Judge, Churu had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the respondent under Section 31(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 because the controversy posed was a pre-election dispute. He referred to the Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India and Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 and urged that jurisdiction of Civil Courts has been barred by the Constitution as well as the provisions of the Municipalities Act and the Election Rules framed thereunder and as such, the District Jude was not having jurisdiction to entertain the plea filed by the respondent under Section 31(c) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

4. Shri S.G. Ojha, Advocate representing the respondent does not dispute this contention of the appellant's counsel and urges that the respondent may be given liberty to challenge the election of Shri Ghanshyam (since declared elected) by filing an election petition.

5. The relevant provisions which are applicable to the controversy being Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India and Sections 30 and 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 are quoted herein below for the sake of ready reference:

    "Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India243ZG-Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, -

      (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made [under. Article 243ZA shall not be called in question in any Court;

        (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State."

          "Section 30 and 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009-

            30. Jurisdiction of civil courts in electoral matters.- (1) No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question relating to the delimitation of wards, the allotment of seats to such wards, preparation of electoral rolls or conduct of election.

              (2) No election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

                31. Election Petition.- (1) The election of any person as a member of a Municipality may be questioned by an election petition filed within one month from the date of election before the District Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the municipal area on one or more of the following grounds, namely;

                  (a) that on the date of election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under this Act, or

                    (b) that any corrupt practice specified in Section 29 has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person, with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent, or

                      (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected, or

                        (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate has been materially affected

                          (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or

                            (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by a person other than that candidate or his election a

                                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                      1
                                      2
                                      3
                                      4
                                      5
                                      6
                                      7
                                      8
                                      9
                                      10
                                      11
                                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                      supreme today icon
                                      logo-black

                                      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

                                      qr

                                      Scan Me!

                                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                      whatsapp-icon Back to top