Dismissed

Rajkumar Shivnarayan Dube and Others v. State Election Commission, Bombay and Others

Bombay HC16 Nov 2016PIL/158/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a PIL challenging the Municipal Council election schedule. The court held that voting is a statutory right, not absolute. Interference in election matters is barred unless patent fraud is shown, citing Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar. The petition was dismissed for lack of substance.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as it was found to be absolutely without substance.

Rajkumar Shivnarayan Dube and Others Vs State Election… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 pil158.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.158/2016

¶4

Rajkumar Shivnarayan Dube and others ..Vs..

¶5

State Election Commission and others

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Shri Shashikant Borkar, counsel for the petitioners. Shri M.K. Pathan, A.G.P. for respondent No.3.

¶8

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 16.11.2016.

¶9

Shri Shashikant Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that out of six Municipal Councils, the election for Bhandara-cum-Gondia Local Authorities' Constituency is to be held on 19.12.2016. He further submits that insofar as the other five Municipal Councils are concerned, the elections are due in the month of January, 2017.

¶10

He, therefore, submits that insofar as one Municipal Council / Nagar Panchayat is concerned, the elected representatives would not have a right to cast their votes in the said election. He further submits that insofar as the other Municipal Councils are concerned though the Members are likely to retire in the month of January, 2017 still they would have a right to vote in elections in the month of November. He further contends that per contra, the Members elected in the

¶11

2 pil158.16

¶12

next month would be deprived of their valuable right to caste the vote. He, therefore, submits that such an action on the part of the Election Commission of India is totally illegal.

¶13

To contest an election or to vote in an election is neither a fundamental nor constitutional nor a common law right. It is absolutely a statutory right.

¶14

The perusal of the notification issued by the Election Commission of India would reveal that the elections are to be held during the period from 19^th November, 2016 to 24^th November, 2016 so as to ensure that elections are completed before 5^th December, 2016 on which date the present incumbent would retire. It would, thus, be seen that the Election Commission has notified that elections are to be held during the period from 19^th November, 2016 to 24^th November, 2016 so as to ensure that they are held prior to 5^th December, 2016.

¶15

Any interference by this Court at this stage or issuing direction to hold the elections after the present incumbent retires would not only amount to an encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Election Commission but would amount to directing it to do something which is contrary to the Statutes.

¶16

It appears that the grievance of the petitioners is that the Members who are likely to retire within a short period would be enjoying their valuable right whereas the member who would be elected in the next month would be deprived of such a valuable right. However, in the political democracy such causalities are

¶17

3 pil158.16

¶18

not uncommon.

¶19

Merely on account of deprivation of some presumed valuable right of presumed elected Councillors, the Court cannot be expected to interfere in the election matters. In any case, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of India V/s. Ashok Kumar reported in 2000 (8) SCC 216 it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere in the election matter unless the case of patent fraud is made out.

¶20

In that view of the matter, the petition is absolutely without substance. It is dismissed accordingly.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

Tambaskar .

Rajkumar Shivnarayan Dube and Others v. State Election Commission, Bombay and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Shivnarayan Dube and Others v. State Election Commission, Bombay and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Bansi Tele Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramod Mahadeo Thakur Vs the Secretary (the Law and Judiciary Department) and Ors.

Mr. Hemant B. Patil Vs Union of India through Its Attorney General and Ors.

Smt. Rehana Habib Merchant Vs the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Manoj S/O Vitthal Bhalerao Vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Collector, Akola and Another

Pragati Shetkari Mandal, through Its President Raju Sahebrao Wankhede, Jambha Khurd Vs State of Maha., through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai, and Others

Shri Virendra S/O Gajanan Dahikar Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Judiciary, Mumbai and Another

Gokuldham Residents Welfare Association Sector-I Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Dr. Sucheta Bhowate W/O Shrikant Meshram and Another Vs Dean and Chairman P.G. Selection Committee and Others

Purushottam Suvalal Poddar and 5 Others Vs the Municipal Council Yavatmal and 2 Others

The Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur. Vs the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) N.Delhi and Anr.

Sau. Chitralekha Nitin Naidu, Headmistress Vs Dr. Rajendra Prakashe, Secretary Adarsha Dyan Prakash Shikshan Sanstha

Karan S/O Arun Handa Vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, through Its Registrar, Nagpur and 2 Others

Karan S/O Arun Handa Vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, through Its Registrar, Nagpur and 2 Others