Allowed

Manik Laxman Shinde v. the State Election Commission and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Jan 2007WP/524/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioner challenged the rejection of his election nomination paper for the Thane Municipal Corporation election on the ground that the security deposit receipt was not annexed. The Court held that rejection under Rule 9 was not permissible as the Act and Rules did not provide for such rejection based on missing receipt instructions.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 16th January 2007 was set aside; Respondent No.2 directed to treat nomination form as valid and direct to allot symbol and allow contesting.

Manik Laxman Shinde Vs the State Election Commission and Anr. — Election Law | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 [-1-]

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION No. 524 OF 2007
 ---------------------------------------------
 Office notes, :
 office memoranda :
 of coram, :
 appearances, :
 Court’s orders : Court’s or Judge’s
 directions & : order
 Registrar’s :
 orders :
 ----------------------------------------------
 Mr. S. M. Oak with Mr.
 Sagar Joshi Advocate
 for the petitioner
 Mr. S. B. Shete, Advocate
 for respondent No.1.
 Mr. R. S. Apte, Advocate
 for respondent No.2.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO,
 AND
 R. V. MORE, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 19, 2007.
 P.C.:
 . Not on board.
 Mentioned, taken on board.
 2. Rule. Heard
 forthwith. The petitioner
 has filed his nomination
 for contesting elections

¶4

 [-2-]

¶5

 to Thane Municipal
 Corporation. The last
 date for filing the
 nomination was 15th
 January, 2007 by 3.00 p.m.
 The petitioner filed his
 nomination on 15th January
 2007 and that nomination
 was accepted. It is the
 case of the petitioner
 that he also deposited
 necessary security deposit
 but had not annexed the
 receipt alongwith the
 nomination form, though it
 was duly paid. On the
 date of scrutiny,
 nomination paper was
 rejected, on the ground
 that there was no proof,
 accompanying the
 nomination paper of
 deposit of the money. The
 nomination paper was
 purportedly rejected in

¶6

 [-3-]

¶7

 exercise of powers under
 Rules of the Election
 Rules.

¶8

 3. On behalf of

¶9

 petitioner, the learned

¶10

 counsel submits that there
 is no ground under Rule 9,

¶11

 under which nomination
 paper of the petitioner

¶12

 could have been rejected.

¶13

 On the contrary, on behalf

¶14

 of the State Election
 Commission, it is pointed

¶15

 out that they have
 instructions issued to the

¶16

 Returning Officers under
 which the nomination paper

¶17

 has to be accompanied by

¶18

 the receipt of proof of

¶19

 deposit of the money. It

¶20

 is also pointed out that

¶21

 the petitioner has a

¶22

 [-4-]

¶23

 remedy by way of election

¶24

 petition. On behalf of
 respondent no.2, it is
 submitted that as the
 nomination form was not

¶25

 accompanied by the receipt
 of deposit, in terms of
 instructions, it was
 within the jurisdiction of
 respondent no.2, to have
 rejected the same.

¶26

 4. A nomination form
 could have been rejected
 if there was a provision
 either in the Act or in
 the Rules. In the instant
 case, neither the Act nor
 the Rules provide for
 rejection of a nomination
 paper, which is not
 supported by the receipt
 of proof of payment of
 deposit. These are only
 instructions issued by the

¶27

 [-5-]

¶28

 Election Commission to the

¶29

 Returning Officers. In

¶30

 these circumstances, it

¶31

 was open to the respondent

¶32

 no.2 not to accept the

¶33

 nomination paper

¶34

 un-accompanied by proof of

¶35

 receipt. Once having
 accepted it, it was not
 open to him to reject the
 same under Rule 9. Apart
 from that, in the instant

¶36

 case, in fact petitioner
 has deposited the money on

¶37

 the 15th January 2007

¶38

 itself. In these
 circumstances, we are
 clearly of the view that
 action of respondent no.2
 in rejecting the

¶39

 petitioner’s nomination
 form was without authority
 of law and consequently
 the order dated 16th
 January 2007 is set aside.

¶40

 [-6-]

¶41

`Respondent no.2 is`
`directed to treat the`
`petitioner’s nomination`
`form as valid and allow`
`him to contest the`
`election. Petitioner is`
`nominated as a candidate`

¶42

 of the political party,
 which has issued
 Annexture-II in his
 favour. Respondent No.2
 to allot him the symbol in
 terms of Annexture II and
 allow him to contest the
 elections. Rule made
 absolute accordingly.
 There shall be no order as
 to cost.

¶43

 5. All parties to act
 upon the authenticated
 copy of this order.

¶44

[ R. V. MORE, J. ][ F. I. REBELLO, J.]

Manik Laxman Shinde v. the State Election Commission and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Laxman Shinde v. the State Election Commission and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Murlidhar Ramkrishna Gathe Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sushilkumar Dharmaraj Navsare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Premsingh Bava Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vivek Dattatraya Shinde Vs the Election Commission and Ors.

Katraj Cliff Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation for the City of Pune and Anr.

Pandurang Dattu Mali Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.