Writ petition challenging the rejection of election papers filed 30 minutes past the deadline. Held that extending time for a recognized party was not required as the petitioner could still contest as an independent candidate.
Petition rejected; Election Commission's decision to reject the late papers is upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[-1-]
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 484 OF 2007
Vivek D. Shinde Petitioner
Vs.
The Election Commission & Ors. Respondents
Mr. S. M. Gorwadkar, Advocate for the
petitioner
Mr. S. B.Shetye, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. R. G. Ketkar with Mr. R. M. Pethe
Advocates for respondent No.2 & 3.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO,
AND
R. V. MORE, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 19, 2007.
P.C.:
. Not on board. Mentioned, taken on board.
2. Petitioner herein has filed election papers
in time and they have been accepted. Petition was
thereafter given Annexture-II by recognised
political party. In terms of the notification
issued by the Election Commissioner, the last date
of filing Annexture-II was 15th January 2007 by 3
p.m. It is the case of the respondent that
petitioner filed the same at 3.30 p.m.
Accordingly, Returning Officer did not accept the
[-2-]
same. The effect would be that the petitioner
[-3-]
would now be contesting as an independent
candidate rather than as a candidate sponsored by
a recognised national party.
3. On behalf of Petitioners, the learned
counsel points out that election papers could not
be filed in time for the reasons set out. It is
submitted that the respondent No.1 is Election
Commission. Respondent no.2 in this matter is
exercising quasi judicial power and in these
circumstances he ought to have exercised the
discretion and accepted Annexture-II.
. Respondent no.2 was acting as a delegate on
behalf of respondent no.1. Rules and
notifications were issued by respondent No.2 as a
delegate. Therefore, respondent no.1 is acting
contrary to the rules and notifications issued.
The notification is clear that Annexture_II has to
be submitted by 3.00 p.m. of the 15th January
2007. Even if it is assumed that the act of
receiving Annexture-II is quasi judicial function
and in the absence of any discretion conferred, it
would not have been open to respondent no.2 to
[-4-]
have extended time, as he was acting as delegate
on behalf of respondent no.1. If we were to
extend theory of hardship in this matter, it is
not as if the petitioner would be barred from
contesting the elections. The nomination is valid
and petitioner will be allotted symbol other than
the symbol, reserved for a recognised political
party. In these circumstances, it will not be
possible to consider the test of hardship,
specially in election matters where other
candidates are also in the field and who are not
parties before us. It was always open to the
other candidates who have pointed out as to why
time should be extended and the effect of
extending time. Considering the above, we are not
inclined to interfere in the exercise of our extra
ordinary jurisdiction. In the light of that,
petition is rejected.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Election Commission should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to accept election papers filed 30 minutes after the deadline.
Vivek D. Shinde
The Election Commission
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
F. I. Rebello
R. V. More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court