Dismissed

Union of India v. Chief Electoral Officer and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2019WP/2528/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Union of India’s writ petition challenging the Election Commission’s requisition of postal staff for election duties. The Court held that departmental staffing shortages do not justify defeating the Commission’s constitutional powers and ordered management adjustments.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for being devoid of merits.

Union of India Vs Chief Electoral Officer and 4 Ors. — Election Law | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

601-OSWPL2630-19.DOC

¶2

Atul

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2630 OF 2019

¶4

Union of India
Versus

¶5

Chief Electoral Ofcer & Ors

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr Parag Vyas, with Ms Karuna Yadav, for the Petitioner.
Ms Jyoti Chavan, AGP, for the State.

¶9

CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ
DATED:16th September 2019

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1. Mentioned. Not on board.

¶12

2.We have heard Mr Parag Vyas, learned Advocate in support
of this petition fled by the Union of India. This writ petition by
Union of India is fled at the instance of the Post-Master General
through the Senior Superintendent of Post Ofces, Mumbai North
West Division, Kandivali (East). The grievance is that the Election
Commission of India has requisitioned the services of the members
of the staf of the petitioner.

¶13

3.The petitioner says that letters have been issued to the Sub
Post-Masters, Borivali, Kandivali and other western suburbs of the

¶14

Page 1 of 3 16th September 2019

¶15

601-OSWPL2630-19.DOC

¶16

Mumbai Suburban District calling upon them to furnish information
and particularly to depute the ofcials working or serving under
them for election duty.

¶17

4.It is undisputed that the State of Maharashtra will have
Legislative Assembly elections as the term of the present Assembly
is coming to an end. The Election Commission of India has
requisitioned the services under its constitutional power as also the
powers conferred by the Representation of Peoples Act 1951.

¶18

5.The Union of India is aggrieved by the requisitions and the
communications in that behalf.

¶19

6.Having heard Mr Vyas at some length and perusing the writ
petition and annexures thereto, all that the petition projects is that
out of sanctioned strength the Division before us is working with
available staf which itself is 50% short. In other words, the
sanctioned strength is of 1,521 but today only 768 appointments are
made. That the department has a shortfall does not mean that the
communication from the Election Commission or the mandate of
the law can be allowed to be defeated or frustrated. More so, when
the powers of the Election Commission are not questioned nor the
provisions themselves are challenged.

¶20

7.The Election Commission of India has acted within the four
corners of its powers in seeking services of the postal staf. It is not
as if the staf would be unable to perform their services in the postal
department or at the concerned post ofces. It is for some time they

¶21

Page 2 of 3 16th September 2019

¶22

601-OSWPL2630-19.DOC

¶23

will be away from work for election duty and the preceding training
session. It is ultimately for the postal department to manage its
afairs. The training session and the election duties can both be
attended and performed together with the existing work and
functions by mutual adjustments. The Chief Electoral Ofcer is
bound to consider such a reasonable request and adjust the timings
of the training session and also assign duties so as not to cause
inconvenience, particularly to female members of the staf.

¶24

8.We do not think that any such arrangements that are carved
out to subserve the larger public interest, and particularly to help
the Election Commission of India to conduct the elections to the
Legislative Assembly freely, fairly and smoothly, call for interference
in our writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, we do not fnd anything in
the grounds of this petition which would enable us to hold that the
Election Commission has acted beyond the powers conferred on it
by the Constitution of India or the Representation of Peoples Act
1951. The communications are neither illegal nor unreasonable,
unfair nor unjust. They warrant no interference in our writ
jurisdiction.

¶25

9. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

¶26

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

¶27

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶28

Page 3 of 3 16th September 2019

Union of India v. Chief Electoral Officer and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Chief Electoral Officer and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanta Babarao Deshmukh Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (B.M.C) and Anr.

Shanta Babarao Deshmukh Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (B.M.C) and Anr.

Prashant Eknath Bhise Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Essa Aziz Tabela Milk Producers Welfare Society and 2 Ors. Vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Harishkumar Gurdasmal Vaswani Vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Shabana Mohammad Sharif Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Rural Development Dept. and Ors.