Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the formation of wards and reservation of seats in Grampanchayat Chale, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur, and the order dated 23rd October 2020 passed by the Collector dismissing his appeal. The dispute arose from the process initiated by the State Election Commission for the conduct of elections to village panchayats whose tenure was expiring. As per the guidelines published on 29th November 2019, the Tahsildar invited objections and suggestions between 7th and 14th February 2020. The petitioner submitted his objections on 7th February 2020, but after a hearing on 29th February 2020, the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected them as vague. The SDO forwarded the proposal to the Collector on 11th March 2020. Despite no statutory provision for an appeal, the petitioner approached the Collector, who dismissed the appeal on 23rd October 2020, confirming the rejection. In the meantime, elections were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and revived on 20th October 2020. The final notification was published on 2nd November 2020, and the election programme was declared on 11th December 2020, with nominations to be filed from 23rd to 30th December 2020 and voting fixed for 15th January 2021. The writ petition was filed on 12th November 2020. The State Election Commission, subsequently added as a party, argued that all steps for election had been taken, ballot papers printed, EVMs set up, and that the High Court should not entertain the petition given the constitutional bar under Article 243-O and the fact that the petitioner’s objections were heard and rejected. The Court noted that Article 243-K vests superintendence of elections in the State Election Commission and Article 243-O expressly prohibits courts from questioning the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats, and mandates that any challenge to an election must be by election petition. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and the Division Bench decision in Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo v. Collector, Satara, the Court held that once delimitation is complete and the election process has commenced, the High Court cannot interfere. The petitioner’s objections had been considered; the remedy was to file an election petition after the election. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the election process was allowed to proceed uninterruptedly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law – Panchayat Elections – Delimitation and Reservation – Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 243-O, 243-K – Where the State Election Commission had issued guidelines for ward formation and reservation, objected were invited, heard, and rejected as vague, and the election programme was declared, the High Court held that under Article 243-O, the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats cannot be called in question in any court, and any challenge must be raised by way of an election petition after the election; the writ petition was not maintainable. (Paras 7-9)
B) Constitutional Law – Panchayat Elections – Remedy – Constitution of India, 1950, Article 243-O(b) – The Court followed the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and the Division Bench in Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo v. Collector, Satara, holding that once the process of delimitation is complete and the election programme is notified, courts should not intervene; the remedy lies only in an election petition presented after the election. (Paras 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge the formation of wards and reservation of seats for a Grampanchayat after objections were heard and rejected by the authorities and the election programme has been declared, in view of the bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that under Article 243-O of the Constitution, the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats cannot be challenged in any court, and no election to a Panchayat can be called in question except by an election petition. The petitioner had availed the opportunity to raise objections, which were heard and rejected. Once the election process had begun, the High Court could not interfere. The petition was not maintainable.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Article 243-O of the Constitution bars interference by courts in electoral matters
- validity of law relating to delimitation of constituencies not to be questioned in any court
- no election to Panchayat shall be called in question except by election petition
- once election process has commenced High Court cannot entertain challenge to delimitation
- objections to ward formation and reservation must be raised before authorities and not courts
- writ petition not maintainable when objections were heard and rejected and election programme is underway
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (01) 29
Writ Petition (ST) No. 97093 of 2020
S.J. Kathawalla, Vinay Joshi
Dinesh W. Bhosale for Petitioner, R.M. Shinde AGP for State, S.B. Shetye with Irfan Shaikh and Sarika Shetye for State Election Commission
The State of Maharashtra through Urban and Rural Development Department, The Collector Solapur, The Sub Divisional Officer Pandharpur, Tahsildar Pandharpur, Shri Rajaram Ananta Gaikwad, Grampanchayat Chale, and State Election Commission
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the formation of wards and reservation of each ward in Grampanchayat Chale, and seeking quashing of the Collector's order dismissing the petitioner's appeal against rejection of his objections.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the Collector's order dated 23rd October 2020, direct the Collector to reconsider the formation of wards and reservation as per notice under Rule 5(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Rules, 1966, and stay the election process.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's objections to the ward formation and reservation were rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer as vague, and the Collector dismissed his appeal, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court on the ground that the rejection was erroneous and the entire process was flawed.
Previous Decisions
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur, after hearing the petitioner on 29th February 2020, rejected the objections as vague. The Collector, Solapur, dismissed the petitioner's appeal (though not maintainable) on 23rd October 2020, confirming the SDO's findings.
Issues
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 lies to challenge the formation of wards and reservation of seats for a Grampanchayat after the election process has commenced and objections were heard and rejected, given the bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that his objections were wrongly rejected as vague and that the Collector erred in confirming the rejection, and therefore the formation and reservation were illegal.
The State Election Commission argued that all steps to conduct the election had been taken, the ballot papers were printed and EVMs set up, the petitioner had been heard, and the writ petition was barred by Article 243-O; additionally, the petitioner had not joined the Commission as a party and had not annexed his objections.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Article 243-O(a) of the Constitution of India, the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K, shall not be called in question in any court. The remedy for any grievance concerning the election lies only by way of an election petition presented after the election. The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition challenging the formation of wards and reservation of seats once the election process has commenced and objections have been heard and decided by the competent authority.
Judgment Excerpts
Clause 1 of Article 243K of the Constitution of India pertains to Election to the Panchayats and provides that, "the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commissioner..."
Article 243-O bars interference by courts in electoral matters. ... "(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State."
It is therefore evident that as per the provisions of Article 243-O(a) once the power exercised by the State Election Commission in relation to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies of the Panchayat, such action cannot be called in question in any court.
Procedural History
The State Election Commission published guidelines on 29-11-2019. Objections invited by Tahsildar from 07-02-2020 to 14-02-2020. Petitioner filed objections on 07-02-2020. SDO heard petitioner on 29-02-2020 and rejected objections as vague; forwarded report to Collector on 11-03-2020. Petitioner filed appeal before Collector, dismissed on 23-10-2020. Elections suspended due to pandemic; suspension revoked on 20-10-2020; final notification on 02-11-2020. Election programme declared on 11-12-2020 (nominations 23-12-2020 to 30-12-2020, voting on 15-01-2021). Writ petition filed on 12-11-2020. State Election Commission added as party during hearing. Judgment delivered on 11-01-2021 dismissing petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 243K, Article 243-O, Article 243-C
- Bombay Village Panchayat Rules, 1966: Rule 5(1), Rule 5(2)
- Delimitation Act, 1950: Section 8, Section 9, Section 10
