Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sow. Laxmibai Vishwanath Gaware, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of her nomination form for the election to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Vasmat, from the VJNT category. The election programme was published on 17.11.2022, with nominations to be filed from 17th to 23rd November 2022. On 22.11.2022, the State of Maharashtra issued an Ordinance amending Section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulations) Act, 1963, which allowed any agriculturist residing in the area of operation of the APMC to contest elections, even if not a voter in the APMC voter list. The petitioner, an agriculturist, filed her nomination on 23.11.2022. However, the Returning Officer rejected her nomination on 25.11.2022 on the ground that she was not a voter in the APMC voter list. The petitioner appealed to the District Election Officer, who dismissed the appeal on 06.12.2022. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The court considered whether the Ordinance applied to the ongoing election process. The court noted that the Ordinance was issued during the nomination period and before scrutiny, and the election process was not complete. The court held that the amended provision must be given effect to, and the rejection based on pre-amendment criteria was invalid. The court allowed the petition, quashed the orders of the Returning Officer and the District Election Officer, and directed the Returning Officer to accept the petitioner's nomination and proceed with the election in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination Rejection - Ordinance Effect - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulations) Act, 1963, Section 13(1) - The petitioner's nomination was rejected on the ground that she was not a voter in the APMC voter list. However, an Ordinance dated 22.11.2022 amended Section 13(1) to allow any agriculturist residing in the area of operation to contest, regardless of voter list inclusion. The court held that the Ordinance applied to the ongoing election process and the rejection was unsustainable. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Ordinance - Retrospective Application - The Ordinance was issued during the nomination period and before scrutiny. The court held that the amended provision must be given effect to, as the election process was not complete. The rejection based on pre-amendment criteria was invalid. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's nomination form for the APMC election was valid in light of the Ordinance dated 22.11.2022 amending Section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulations) Act, 1963, which gave agriculturists the right to contest elections even if not voters in the APMC voter list.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Returning Officer and the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the District Election Officer, and directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination of the petitioner and proceed with the election in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Election law
- Ordinance
- Retrospective effect
- Nomination rejection
- Agricultural Produce Market Committee
- VJNT category
