Dismissed

Vandana Parmeshwar Satpute v. the Returning Officer and Tahsildar Beed and Another

Bombay HC9 Aug 2018WP/8977/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging eligibility of Respondent No.2 elected as Sarpanch alleging electoral fraud, voters list defects, and corrupt practices. Court rejected writ petition noting allegations require evidence at trial and refused to quash election pending trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vandana Parmeshwar Satpute Vs the Returning Officer and… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 W.P. No. 8977/2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8977 of 2018

¶4

Vandana W/o Parmeshwar Satpute, age 29 years occupation household and agriculture R/o Babhalwadi Taluka and District Beed ...Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The Returning Officer and Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Beed Taluka and District Beed.

¶7

Ashwini W/o Dadasaheb Khindkar, age 25 years occupation household R/o Belwadi Taluka and District Beed. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.P. Tiwari, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

¶10

DATE : 9^th August, 2018

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioner at length.

¶13

Petitioner's case is that she has lost election by margin of only seven votes. There had been fraudulent and corrupt practices involved in election. Respondent No.2 would not be entitled to be elected as Sarpanch legitimately. Election petition has also been preferred by petitioner and the same is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Beed, bearing No. 3 of 2018.

¶14

2 W.P. No. 8977/2018

¶15

Submission on behalf of petitioner is that respondent No.2 has been elected as Sarpanch pursuant to amended provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 with the aid of defectively prepared voters list. She is scheduled to take charge as Sarpanch of Group Grampanchayat BabhalwadiBelwadi-Bedukwadi on 11^th August, 2018.

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that perusal of voters list would reveal that six dead persons and quite a few minors have been included in the same. It has further been shown that such persons have also participated in voting process. He further submits that as a matter of fact, one of the voters, who is serving as Village Development Officer at a place at far distance, has been shown to have voted in election. For said purpose, according to instructions, the petitioner had placed on record material showing the same.

¶17

In the election petition, the petitioner had also filed an application for temporary injunction restraining respondent No.2 from assuming charge of post of Sarpanch and the same has been rejected drifting away from factual position and getting influenced by aspects which are not germane. He submits that it is not a case wherein it can be said that Judge would not have power of granting temporary injunction invoking powers similar

¶18

3 W.P. No. 8977/2018

¶19

to Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. He purports to refer to a decision as referred to in impugned order. He therefore, submits that this is a fit case wherein indulgence ought to be given in favour of petitioner.

¶20

Although learned Advocate has advanced aforesaid submissions, paragraphs No. 8 and 9 of the impugned decision, particularly, read, thus:

¶21

“ 8½ vkrk vtkZrhy vtZnkjkus mpyysY;k eq|kaP;k vuq‘kaxkus ppkZ djrkuk nksUghgh fo/khKkauh vfr'k; vkd‘kZd vlk ;qDrhokn dsyk- fot; o ijkt; rks dlk Lohdkjkok] xkokrhy jktdkj.k v'kk vusd ckchapk mYys[k dsyk- rFkkih R;kP;k tkLr [kksykr u tkrk izLrqrpk vtZ xSjvtZnkj vf'ouh f[kaMdj fgl ;k ;kfpdspk fudky ykxsi;Zar ljiap inkpk inHkkj ?ksow u;s vlk eukbZ gqdwe |kok vlk vkgs- vFkkZrp eukbZ gqdwe vki.k dk;|kP;k rhu izeq[k fud‘kkoj nsr vlrks,d vtZnkjkP;k gDdkr izFken'kZuh dsl vkgs dk; gs ikgw ;k- ;k ;kfpdsr fuoM.kqdh lanHkkZr vtZnkjkus vusd vk{ksi ? ksrys vkgsr- R;kapk izFke vk{ksi gk ernkj ;knhoj vkgsxSjvtZnkjkus xSjekxkZpk voyac d#u vusd yksdkauk ernkj d#u ?ksrys o v'kk vk{ksigk;Z ernkj ;knhl vafre Lo#i nsowu izfl/n dj.;kr vkyh- ernku ;knhP;k vuq‘kaxkus R;kauh fuoM.kqd vf/kdk&;kadMs fjrlj vtZ fnyk gksrk o fnukad 24-04-2018 jksth rlk vk{ksi uksanfoyk gksrk- R;k vuq‘kaxkus eaMG vf/kdkjh] rykBh vkf.k ch-,y-vks- ;kauh fnukad 27-04-2018 jksth pkSd'kh dsyh o rlk vgoky gh lknj >kyk- ek= lnjph pkSd'kh ;ksX; >kyh ukgh vkf.k gk

¶22

4 W.P. No. 8977/2018

¶23

vgoky [kksVk fnyk vkgs vls vtZnkjkps Eg.k.ks vkg-s FkksM;k oGkiwjrs gs [kjs tjh /kjys rjh ;kpk vFkZ vtZnkjkl fuoM.kqdhiwohZ izfl/n >kysyh ;knh gh [kksVh vlY;kps ekfgrh gksrs rjh i.k R;kauh ;kckcr l{ke U;k;ky;kdMs vk{ksi uksanfoysyk fnlr ukgh- FkksMD;kr R;kauh lnj ;knhl ekU;rk fnyh vlsp Eg.kkos ykxsy- Who consent can not complaint- fuoM.kqd vf/kdk&;kdMs R;kauh dsysyk vk{ksi QsVkGwu fuoM.kqd vf/kdk&;kus lnjP;k ;knhyk vafre Lo#i fnys gksrs- R;keqGs ;k fo‘k;h fudky >kY;kuarj ?ksrysyk vk{ksi vkt jksth fopkjkr ?ksrk ;s.kkj ukgh- R;kyk law of estoppal by conduct ph ck/kk ;srs- xSjvtZnkjkus lnj ernkj ;knhe/;s vk.k[kh ernkjkapk lekos'k dsyk o R;keqGs ernkjkaph la[;k 396 ,soth 509 >kyh vkf.k R;keqGs vtZnkjkpk ijkHko >kyk gk ;qDrhokn fdrhgh vkd‘kZd okVyk rjh rksxMk vkgs- ekb;k ers ernku gk izR;sd O;Drhpk eqyHkwr vf/kdkj vlwu R;kckcrph fopkj.kk ernkjkdMs djrk ;s.kkj ukgh- ,dq.k ernkukiSdh 789 ers xSjvtZnkjkl iMyh o 782 ers vtZnkjkl iMyh ,o<sp Eg.krk ;sbZy- ;kis{kk vf/kdps fo'ys‘k.k djrk ;s.kkj ukgh- xSjvtZnkjkus [kktxh okgus bR;knhapk xSjokij d#u ernku d#u ?ksrys fdaok cksxl ernku >kys ;k rdzkjh vtZnkjkl iqjkO;kfu'kh fl/n djkO;k ykxrhytjh vtkZe/;s lkljh xsysY;k eqyhaph lfoLrj ukos] e;r vFkok csiRrk O;Drhaph ukos o R;kaps dzekad fnys vlys rjh izR;{k iqjkok vkY;kf'kok; R;koj vkrkp Hkk‘; djrk ;s.kkj ukgh- xSjvtZnkjkus Mh-lhlh- cWadsP;k iklcqdkph izr oki#u [kksVh vksG[ki= r;kj dsyh ;kgh vkjksikckcr iqjkok vkY;kf'kok; Hkk‘; djrk ;s.kkj ukgh- ,danjhr vtZnkjkus dsysys loZ vkjksi gs izR;{k iqjkok vkY;kf'kok; [kjsp vkgsr

¶24

5 W.P. No. 8977/2018

¶25

vls Eg.krk ;s.kkj ukgh- nqljs Eg.kts gs loZ vkjksi vtZnkjkdMs ernkukiwohZgh miyC/k gksrs] ijarq R;kauh fuoM.kqd Fkkacfo.;klkBh iz;Ru dsY;kps fnlwu ;sr ukgh- R;keqGs ijkHko gsp lnjph fuoM.kqd ;kfpdk nk[ky dj.;kps dkj.k vlY;kps ld`rn'kZuh fnlwu ;srs-

¶26

9½ Hkkjrh; ?kVuse/;s fuoM.kqd vk;ksxkps ,d Lora= LFkku f uekZ.k dsys vlwu rh ,d Lok;Rr laLFkk vkgs- loZ Lrjkojhy fu‘i{k fuoM.kqd ?ks.ks gh frph drZO; vlwu rh ?kVusizek.ks pkyrs- fuoM.kqd vf/kdkjh gk fuoM.kqd vk;ksxkl cka/khy vlwu ,d dk;ns'khj fuoM.kqd izfdz;k ikj ikMhr vlrks- R;keqGs vf/kdk&;ka'kh laxuer d#u cqFk cnywu ?ksrys] cksxl ernku dsys] [kksVk vgoky ikBfoyk bR;knh vkjksi izFken'kZuh Lohdkjrk ;s.kkj ukghr- yksd'kkgh ekxkZus o fuoM.kqd i/nrhus fuoMwu vkysY;k mesnokjkl ljiap inkpk inHkkj ?ks.;kiklwu jks[krk ;s.kkj ukgh- ernkjkauh fnysY;k erkapk vknj dj.ks gs uqlrsp uSfrd drZO; ukgh rj rs dk;ns'khj ca/kudkjd vkgsfuoM.kqdhpk fudky ekU; ukgh vls dks.kklgh Eg.krk ;s.kkj ukgh- fuoM.kqdhpk fudky vtZnkj o xSjvtZnkjkP;k bPNsoj voyacwu ukgh rks Lohdkj.ks nksUgh i{kdkjkaoj ca/kudkjd vkgstj v'kk izdkjpk eukbZ gqdwe fnyk xsyk rj fuf'prp lnj xzkeiapk;ryk ljiap vl.kkj ukgh- ckHkGokMh&csyokMh &csMdokMh gs frUgh NksVh xkos vlY;kus frUghr feGwu xzqi xzkeiapk;r vkgs- osGksosGh 'kklukdMwu ;s.kkjs vuqnku o brj ckchapk fopkj djrk ufou ikp o‘kkZadfjrk lnj xzqi xzkeiapk;rhl ljiapkph vfr'k; xjt vkgs- cgqerkph dnj dj.ks gs uqlrsp drZO; ukgh rj dk;ns'khj ca/ku vkgsvktferhl vtZnkjkP;k gDdkr dks.krsgh ld`rn'kZuh izdj.k eyk fnlwu vkys ukgh- fuf'prp U;k;kpk rksy gk

¶27

6 W.P. No. 8977/2018

¶28

xSjvtZnkjkP;k cktwus vkgs- v'kk izdkjpk eukbZ gqdwe fnY;kl xSjvtZnkjkps vFkkZr frUgh xkokrhy yksdkaps vrksukr uqdlku gks.kkj vkgs o xSjvtZnkjkl ?kVusus feGkysY;k vf/kdkjkiklwu oafpr BsoY;klkj[ks gksbZy- “

¶29

Aforesaid observations show that all the relevant aspects to decide application before the court have been properly considered. It appears that major allegations with regard to defect in voters list and the allegations about corrupt practises by respondent No.2 will have to be established by leading evidence as observed by trial court. It is not a case wherein, elected person, for the matters which are in the realm of allegations at this stage, can be restrained from holding charge of the post without evidence having been adduced. The petition, thus, is not being entertained and same is rejected.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that written statement has already been filed and the matter is pending at the stage of framing of issues and requests for expeditious disposal of the election petition.

¶31

Having regard to aforesaid submission, the concerned Judge may proceed with the election petition as expeditiously as possible and may dispose of the same preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

¶32

7 W.P. No. 8977/2018

¶33

Needless to refer to that observations hitherto by the trial judge as well as this court are at interlocutory stage of the matter and would not have any efficacy further. As such, while deciding the matter, trial court should not be influenced by observations hitherto and the election petition is to be decided on its own merits.

¶34

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE.

¶35

Madkar

Vandana Parmeshwar Satpute v. the Returning Officer and Tahsildar Beed and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vandana Parmeshwar Satpute v. the Returning Officer and Tahsildar Beed and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivlal Shamlal Thakare Vs Tukaram Vithal Patil

Sachin Tukaram Gude Vs Surekha Sachin Gude

Sigbattulakhan Bismillahkhan Pathan Vs Assistant Engineer and Other

Kailan Baburao Jadhav and Others. Vs Shivaji Trukaram Kate and Others.

M/S Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. Aurangabad through Plant Heard Vs Aurangabad Majdoor Union through General Secretary

Fakruzama Sayed Maheboob Vs Shaikh Mahemood Shaikh Chand and Others