Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shrikrishna Adbol, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order dated 08.12.2016 and communication dated 18.01.2017 passed by respondent no.3, the Under Secretary of the Election Commission of India. The petitioner had earlier preferred a complaint under Section 10-A read with Chapter VIII of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, before the Chief Election Commissioner, seeking disqualification of respondent no.4, Sanjay Dhotre, an elected candidate, on the ground that he had failed to lodge his election expenses within the prescribed time. The complaint was titled 'Complaint Election Petition No.6/MT-PC/6/2014-CEMS-II of 2015'. The Election Commission rejected the complaint by a reasoned order. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court. The Court perused the complaint, which ran into 27 pages, but did not deem it appropriate to enlarge the judgment by referring to the entire details. The Court noted that the Election Commission had passed a reasoned order and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that no interference was warranted under Article 226. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice S.M. Modak on 4th February 2020.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope under Article 226 - Election Commission's Order - The High Court examined whether the Election Commission's order rejecting a complaint for disqualification of an elected candidate under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was liable to be set aside. The Court held that the order was a reasoned order and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-6)
B) Election Law - Disqualification - Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Non-filing of Election Expenses - The petitioner sought disqualification of respondent no.4 on the ground that election expenses were not lodged within the prescribed time. The Election Commission rejected the complaint. The High Court upheld the order, noting that the Commission had considered the material and passed a reasoned order. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Election Commission's order rejecting the petitioner's complaint for disqualification of respondent no.4 under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Election Commission's order was a reasoned order and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact. No interference under Article 226 was warranted.
Law Points
- Election Commission's power to disqualify under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- Scope of judicial review under Article 226
- Requirement of reasoned order
- Locus standi of complainant
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 130
WRIT PETITION NO.1576 OF 2017
Ravindra V. Ghuge, S.M. Modak
Shri N.B. Rathod for Petitioner, Ms. Neerja Chaubey for Respondent No.1, Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar for Respondent No.4, Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for Respondent No.5
Election Commission of India, Principal Secretary of Election Commission of India, Mr. Saumyajit Ghosh, Mr. Sanjay Dhotre, District Election Officer (Collector, Akola District)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging the order of the Election Commission rejecting a complaint for disqualification of an elected candidate.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 08.12.2016 and communication dated 18.01.2017 passed by respondent no.3, and a direction to disqualify respondent no.4 under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that respondent no.4 failed to lodge election expenses within the prescribed time, warranting disqualification under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Previous Decisions
The Election Commission rejected the petitioner's complaint by a reasoned order dated 08.12.2016 and communication dated 18.01.2017.
Issues
Whether the Election Commission's order rejecting the complaint for disqualification under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is legally sustainable.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Election Commission's reasoned order.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Election Commission erred in rejecting the complaint and that respondent no.4 should be disqualified for non-filing of election expenses.
The respondents supported the order, contending that it was a reasoned order and no interference was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
The Election Commission's order rejecting a complaint for disqualification under Section 10-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is a reasoned order and cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the petitioner demonstrates an error of law or fact.
Judgment Excerpts
We have perused the complaint preferred by the petitioner, which runs into 27 pages.
Suffice it to say, that the petitioner had sought the disqualification of respondent no.4 elected candidate on the ground that the election expenses were not lodged within the prescribed time under Section 10-A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.
We do not deem it appropriate to enlarge the size of this judgment by referring to the entire details of the contentions set out in the complaint.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 10-A read with Chapter VIII of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 before the Chief Election Commissioner seeking disqualification of respondent no.4. The Election Commission rejected the complaint by order dated 08.12.2016 and communication dated 18.01.2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 04.02.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 10-A, Chapter VIII
- Constitution of India: Article 226
