This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an election petition alleging irregularities in vote counting due to the petitioner not being notified to be present. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that mere doubt without proof of obstruction does not warrant quashing the election.
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
wp1337.10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.1337 OF 2010
Shaikh Wahidabano D/o. Kasimsaheb : Petitioner
V/s.
Bande Rekha Ravindra & Ors. : Respondents
Mr.A.N.Maniyar for the petitioner.
Mr.V.B.Naik for respondent nos.6 & 7.
Mr.P.S.Dani i/b. Mr.P.B.Kulkarni for respondent no.5.
..... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND
MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.
DATE : JULY 27, 2010.
P.C.:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur, whereby Election Petition No.5 of 2008 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that general election to the Municipal Corporation, Solapur, was held on 1.2.2007.
The petitioner contested the election from ward no.45 which was reserved
2 wp1337.10
for woman candidate. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent no.5 and others contested the election from ward no.45.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the grievance of the
petitioner is in respect of the manner in which counting of votes was conducted by the Counting Officer for ward no.45. It is submitted that the petitioner or her representative has a right in law to remain present at the time of counting of votes by the Counting Officer. It is submitted that at the relevant time, though the petitioner was within the vicinity of the place where the counting of votes for ward no.45 took place, the petitioner was not intimated or called by the Counting Officer to remain present at the time of counting of votes. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the entire counting of votes for ward no.45 took place behind the back of the petitioner as well as her representative. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the procedure undertaken by the Counting Officer for counting of votes, in the absence of the petitioner, is a serious irregularity which materially affects the election of the candidate from ward no.45 and, therefore, the petitioner filed an Election Petition under section 16 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
3
wp1337.10
4
wp1337.10
counsel and perused the impugned order. In paragraph 22 of the impugned order, the Tribunal recorded the finding based on the evidence adduced by the parties and observed that in their evidence neither the petitioner nor her representative has stated that they were prevented from remaining present at the counting booth or were prohibited from entering the hall where the counting was going on. The petitioner has stated in her cross-examination that the analysis of counting process and its results were announced from time to time on loud speaker. The petitioner or her representative has nowhere stated that as a result of faulty counting, the result of the election of ward no.45 was seriously affected. The petitioner though stated that there was malpractice in the entire counting process and she has doubt in her mind in this regard, however, mere doubt or suspicion cannot take the place of proof in the eyes of law. The petitioner has not specifically made any allegation nor adduced any evidence to that effect except expressed doubt, for declaring the election of ward no.45 as null and void.
5
wp1337.10
considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has observed that it was not the case of the petitioner that either the petitioner or her representative was obstructed or prevented from entering the hall where the counting was going on. Similarly, the petitioner did not make any written complaint to the concerned Officer.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the failure to notify the petitioner to be present during vote counting, without proving obstruction or prohibition, materially affects the election result.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shaikh Wahidabano D/o. Kasimsaheb
Bande Rekha Ravindra
D.D. Sinha
Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
