Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sadashivrao Ganpatrao Mahajan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 03.06.2010 passed by the Election Officer and Assistant Registrar for the election of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ralegaon. The order declared that respondent no.2, Prafulla s/o Khushalrao Mankar, was eligible to contest the election from the Cooperative Society's Constituency under Section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (APMC Act). The petitioner sought a direction to reject respondent no.2's nomination papers. During the pendency of the petition, respondent no.2 contested the election as there was no stay, and was declared elected. The Government Pleader, Mr. Sambre, argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of an election petition under Rule 88 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 (APMC Rules). However, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Paliwal, pointed out that Rule 88 had been deleted from the book on 02.11.2007. The Government Pleader conceded that the rule had been deleted. The Court noted that since the rule providing for an election petition had been deleted, the petitioner had no alternate remedy, and therefore the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable. The Court did not decide the merits of the eligibility issue but allowed the petition on the ground of maintainability, setting aside the order dated 03.06.2010 and directing the respondents to reject the nomination papers of respondent no.2. The Court also directed that the election of respondent no.2, if any, would be subject to the outcome of the petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternate Remedy - Deletion of Rule 88 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 - The petitioner challenged the eligibility of respondent no.2 to contest the election of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee. The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of election petition under Rule 88 of the APMC Rules. However, the petitioner pointed out that Rule 88 had been deleted on 02.11.2007. The Court held that since the rule providing for election petition had been deleted, the petitioner had no alternate remedy and the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable. (Paras 4-5) B) Election Law - Eligibility to Contest - Section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - The petitioner challenged the order dated 03.06.2010 holding that respondent no.2 was eligible to contest the election from the Cooperative Society's Constituency. The Court did not decide the merits of eligibility but allowed the petition on the ground of maintainability due to lack of alternate remedy. (Paras 3, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's challenge to the eligibility of respondent no.2 to contest the election of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the election having been held and respondent no.2 having been declared elected, and whether the deletion of Rule 88 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 bars the remedy of election petition.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 03.06.2010, and directed the respondents to reject the nomination papers of respondent no.2. The election of respondent no.2, if any, was directed to be subject to the outcome of the petition.
Law Points
- Election eligibility
- Writ jurisdiction
- Alternate remedy
- Deletion of statutory rule
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1963
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules
- 1967
