Writ petition challenging rejection of nomination papers was disposed of as not requiring consideration due to the pendency of an election petition filed by the petitioner regarding the same grounds. The court clarified that such an election petition is a valid remedy.
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.
wp 12349.16.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12349 OF 2016
Sau Bhavna Ajay Patil Petitioner Versus
Returning Officer for Election of Municipal Council, Bhusawal and another Respondents
Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.P.Tiwari, AGP for Respondents
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ
(Date : 21st December, 2016.)
PER COURT :-
1 The petitioner is objecting to the order passed by the Returning Officer, rejecting her nomination papers for contesting elections to the post of President as well as Councillor of the Municipal Council.
2 Admittedly, the petitioner was disqualified under section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986. The order of disqualification issued on 1.10.2015 is construed as a bar for contesting elections of President, by the Returning Officer and order passed by the
{2}
wp 12349.16.odt
Returning Officer has been confirmed by the District Judge while disposing the Appeal presented by the petitioner under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Election Rules, 1966.
3 The petitioner contends that, the election process is over and that she has availed of remedy of presenting election petition under section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Township Act, 1965. The petitioner apprehends that the order passed by the Appellate Forum under Rule 15 during continuance of process of election would be a bar for consideration of a challenge raised by the petitioner in the election petition.
4 The apprehension expressed by the petitioner appears to be unfounded. A voter/member desirous of contesting election, whose nomination paper is rejected, is entitled to raise a dispute, in respect of election or nomination of a Councillor or President by taking recourse to section 21 of the Act of 1965. There is nothing in provisions of section 21 or in any other provision debarring a disputant to raise such a ground in the election petition. It would be thus, open for the petitioner to raise a ground in respect of wrongful rejection of her nomination papers in the election petition, which according to petitioner has been presented. In
wp 12349.16.odt
{3}
view of pendency of a election petition presented by the petitioner, the instant petition need not be considered.
5 Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)
vbd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the pendency of an election petition filed by the petitioner precludes consideration of her writ petition challenging the rejection of her nomination papers.
Whether the applicant is barred from approaching the court after an election petition is filed due to the discharge of the impugned order.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sau Bhavna Ajay Patil
Returning Officer for Election of Municipal Council, Bhusawal
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
R.M. BORDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
