MAHESHBHAI BHIKHABHAI VASAVA vs ELECTION COMMISSION

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 1510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6267 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Sd/-
and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? NO
==========================================================
MAHESHBHAI BHIKHABHAI VASAVA Versus ELECTION COMMISSION ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. V.C. VAGHELA, LD. ADVOCATE WITH MR. ANIL H PATEL(7832) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. AYAN PATEL, LD. ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 UNSERVED REFUSED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 14/09/2021

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	YES
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	YES
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	NO
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	NO

Advocates:
['ANIL H PATEL', 'ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP', 'ROOPAL R PATEL', 'NOTICE SERVED BY DS', 'UNSERVED REFUSED N']

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

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 昀椀nal 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 昀椀rst 09 candidates were as under;

Sr. No.	Name of Candidates	A昀케liated to the Political Party	Total votes received
1.	Jayshriben Kamleshbhai Solanki	Bhartiya Janta Party	857
2.	Pragneshkumar Mahendrakumar Rami	Bhartiya Janta Party	857
3.	Maheshbhai Bhikhabhai Vasava (Writ Applicant)	Bhartiya Jantra Party	776
4.	Muntzirkhan Mahebubkhan Shaikh	Bhartiya Rashtriya	846

		Congress
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 Sa昀椀 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 O昀케cer 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 昀椀rst 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 02.08.2021, the Returning O昀케cer informed the writ applicant that his objections as regards the declaration of the result stood overruled.

2.9 In such circums

Click Here to Read the rest of this document