{1}

wp3639-20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.3639 OF 2020

Rohini Balasaheb Lawande

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Additional Commissioner,

Nashik Division, Nashik and Others RESPONDENTS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.3640 OF 2020

Tarabai Vikram Athre

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Additional Commissioner,

Nashik Division, Nashik and Others

RESPONDENTS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.3641 OF 2020

Bhamabai Kanifnath Lawande

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Additional Commissioner,

Nashik Division, Nashik and Others

RESPONDENTS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.3642 OF 2020

Suvarna Ravindra Athre

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Additional Commissioner,

Nashik Division, Nashik and Others RESPONDENTS

{2}

wp3639-20

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.3643 OF 2020

Jayshree Balasaheb Athre

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Additional Commissioner,

Nashik Division, Nashik and Others RESPONDENTS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.3644 OF 2020

Sunita Krushna Salve

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Additional Commissioner,

Nashik Division, Nashik and Others RESPONDENTS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.3645 OF 2020

Narayan Jaganath Athre

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Additional Commissioner,

Nashik Division, Nashik and Others

RESPONDENTS

…..

Mr. Jiwan J. Patil h/f Mr. R. S. Kasar, Advocate for the

petitioners

Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for respondent - State

Mr. A. B. Kadethankar, Advocate for Maharashtra State

Election Commission

…..

{3}

wp3639-20

[CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.]

RESERVED ON : 5

^th MARCH, 2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 4

^th MAY, 2021

ORAL ORDER (PER SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)

.

The reference comes before us pursuant to judgment

and order dated 6^th March, 2020 passed by learned single

judge in a group of writ petitions bearing No. 3639 of 2020

and other companion matters.

2.

Learned single judge, hearing writ petition No. 3639 of

2020 and others, had found that the issue raised in the

matters is as to whether a candidate elected unopposed is

required to tender account of election expenses, and that

petitioners rely on Dipmala w/o Ravindra Chachane V/s.

Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, 2020 (1) Mh.L.J. 900 to

contend that a candidate elected unopposed is not required

to campaign for contesting election and, as such, does not

incur election expenses.

3.

Case submitted before the learned single Judge on

behalf of the State had been that in Dipmala’s case (supra),

{4}

wp3639-20

section 77 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 which

mandates a candidate to keep account of all the

expenditure incurred in connection with election, from the

stage of nomination to the date of declaration of result as

well as order dated 15^th October, 2016 issued by the

Maharashtra State Election Commission with regard to

submission of expenses in election to the Parliament,

Legislative assembly and local bodies had not been referred

to or cited. The Resolution refers to, inter alia, that

expenditure incurred even for tendering nomination form

would be an election expenditure.

In said group of petitions viz; W. P. No.3639 of 2020 &

others, order of the State election commission dated 7^th

February, 1995 was referred to whereunder a candidate

was supposed to maintain an abstract of accounts of

expenditure including amount spent on the items specifed

in proforma in Annexure 1 as election expenses which

contains thirty one heads, inter alia, cost of nomination

form, expenditure on security deposit, purchase of copies of

electoral rolls, etc. Information according to Annexure 1 was

required to be submitted by a candidate within thirty days

{5}

wp3639-20

of declaration of election result with the election ofcer, to

be accompanied by afdavit on oath. The candidate was

also required to maintain day to day accounts of

expenditure and submit the same to returning ofcer on

fo