Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shivaji Laxman Wadkar and Kiran Daulat Gosavi, filed two separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. They challenged the order dated 31st December 2020 passed by the Election Returning Officer of Gram Panchayat Velu, Taluka Bhor, District Pune. The Returning Officer had rejected the written objections filed by the petitioners against the nomination forms of the respective respondents (Balasaheb Ramchandra Wadkar and Ishwar Baban Pangare) for contesting the election from Ward No. 4 of Gram Panchayat Velu. The matter came up before a Division Bench upon a praecipe filed by the respondents seeking vacation of an ad-interim order passed by a learned Single Judge (Vacation Court). The petitioners, through their senior counsel Mr. R.A. Thorat, argued that the writ petition was rightly heard by the Single Judge and could not be heard by the Division Bench, relying on Rule 18(3) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. However, the court did not delve into the merits of the nomination objection. Instead, it considered the maintainability of the writ petition. The court observed that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an election petition under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, to challenge the rejection of their objections. The court held that the order of the Returning Officer was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Consequently, the court dismissed both writ petitions, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the remedy of an election petition in accordance with law. The court also clarified that the ad-interim order passed by the Single Judge stood vacated.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that the order of the Returning Officer rejecting an objection to a nomination form is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an election petition under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The court dismissed the writ petitions on this ground. (Paras 1-10) B) Election Law - Gram Panchayat Elections - Nomination Objection - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The petitioner's objection to the nomination of the respondent was rejected by the Returning Officer. The court held that such disputes must be raised in an election petition, not by way of a writ petition. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the written objection to a nomination form can be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or whether the petitioner must avail the alternative remedy of an election petition under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The ad-interim order passed by the learned Single Judge stands vacated. It is open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of an election petition in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not available against orders of Returning Officer in election matters
- Alternative remedy of election petition under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959
- Rule 18(3) of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules
- 1960
