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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2171

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S. V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige, JJ
Sonal Dilip Shinde – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4065 of 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. S. Bagul
For the Respondents: S. B. Yawalkar, A. B. Kadethankar, N. N. Desale, Alok Sharma

Nominated councillors are subject to the same disqualifications as elected councillors under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.

Headnote:The Court analyzed the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and evaluated whether nominated councillors can incur disqualifications applicable to elected councillors. The petitioner challenged a disqualification for failure to submit election expenses, asserting that nominated councillors should not be held to such requirements as they do not contest elections. However, the Court concluded that disqualifications outlined in the Act equally apply to both elected and nominated councillors. The main issues framed by the Court were: whether a nominated councillor is disqualified under Section 10(1E) for failing to submit election expenses and whether such a councillor can be unseated due to disqualification. The Court reasoned that the statutory definition of 'councillor' includes both elected and nominated members, thus making them subject to the same disqualifications, reinforcing legislative intent and the fundamental spirit of the law. In light of these findings, the Court confirmed that the nomination process does not exempt a councillor from disqualifications, thereby ruling against the petitioner's claim in issue (b) and addressing issue (a) concerning the applicability of election expense submission.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's disqualification incurred due to failure to submit election expenses. (Para 1 , 2)

ORDER

1. Every person, whose name is included in the ‘list of contesting candidates’, including the single valid candidate on any particular seat, shall have to submit the account of election expenses om the time and manner as specified by the Commission. However, candidates who have withdrawn their nominations will not be required to submit the account of elections expenses.

2. Contesting candidates shall have to submit the following documents :

(a) From the date of nomination, daily account of election expenses to the Returning OfÏcer on every next day before 2 p.m. till the publication of the results in the ofÏcial gazette; and (b) Total account of election expenses within 30 days from declaration of result and AfÏdavit regarding submission of true election expenses within 30 days from declaration of result, to Collector/Municipal Commissioner or to an OfÏcer authorized by them not less than the rank of Tahsildar/Assistant Municipal Commissioner and to take acknowledgment for the same.

20. It would appear that in view of the said order, the candidates who have withdrawn their nominations are not required to submit the account of election expenses. The orders of the Election Commission issued in exercise of powers conferred by Articles 243-K and 243-ZA of the Constitution has the force of law. The nominated candidates are not required to under go the process of election and they are only nominated. In view of that, they are not required to submit the election expenses. So the question of disqualification U/Sec. 10(1E) and 49 of the Act 1949 would not arise. Had the nominated councillor required to under go the process of election as was provided in the erstwhile 1995 Rules, then the disqualification U/Sec. 10(1E) of the Act 1949 would have been attracted. But the said position is not countenanced under 2012 Rules. The disqualification attributable to a member of a local body for failing to lodge election expenses within the time and manner as specified by State Election Commission is applicable only to such member, who “had been a contesting candidate, but no one else”. If the member of a local body, councillor of municipal corporation is not chosen vide an election of whatsoever nature, such member shall not be susceptible to the disqualification on the ground of non submission of election expenses. However, if the person nominated as a Councillor had earlier contested election and had failed to submit the election expenses as may be required under law and was disqualified by any order, then, in that case, he will be disqualified to be nominated as Councillor. The issue No. (a) is answered accordingly.

21. Having answered the questions referred to above, the matter shall go back to the respective bench for decision on other questions.

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