Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manchak s/o. Shahaji Pawar, filed two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Election Officer (respondent no.2) accepting the nomination papers of respondent no.4 in each petition for the general election of the Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Bansarola (respondent no.3), a society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. In Writ Petition No. 251 of 2011, respondent no.4 Smt. Simadevi Anant Mule had submitted her nomination for a post reserved for women, while in Writ Petition No. 257 of 2011, respondent no.4 Vithal s/o. Sandipan Kshirsagar was contesting for an open post. The petitioner contended that the nomination papers were wrongly accepted. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the controversy pertained to the acceptance of nomination papers and that an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was available to the petitioner. The court noted that the election process had already commenced and that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory alternative remedy exists. Consequently, the court dismissed both writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of election petition in accordance with law. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Alternative Remedy - Writ Jurisdiction - Availability of Election Petition - The petitioner challenged the acceptance of nomination papers by the Election Officer for the general election of a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The court held that since an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Section 91 of the Act is available, the writ petitions are not maintainable. The court dismissed the petitions with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the acceptance of nomination papers for election to a cooperative society when an alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is available.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Election petition
- Cooperative societies
- Writ jurisdiction
- Nomination acceptance
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (02) 16
Writ Petition No. 251 of 2011 with Writ Petition No. 257 of 2011
Mr. D.J. Choudhari (for petitioner), Mr. D.R. Korde (AGP for R1-2 in WP 251/2011), Mr. S.K. Tambe (AGP for R1-2 in WP 257/2011), Mr. N.R. Pawade (for R3 in both), Mr. V.D. Salunke (for R4 in both)
Manchak s/o. Shahaji Pawar
State of Maharashtra, Election Officer, Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., and Smt. Simadevi Anant Mule (in WP 251/2011) / Vithal s/o. Sandipan Kshirsagar (in WP 257/2011)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Election Officer accepting nomination papers for the general election of a cooperative society.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to challenge the acceptance of nomination papers of respondent no.4 in each petition.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the nomination papers were wrongly accepted by the Election Officer.
Issues
Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when an alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is available.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the nomination papers were wrongly accepted.
The respondents contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable as an alternative remedy of election petition is available.
Ratio Decidendi
When an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statute, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The availability of an election petition under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 provides an adequate remedy to challenge the acceptance of nomination papers.
Judgment Excerpts
By these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order of respondent no.2 / Election Officer, accepting nomination paper of respective respondent no.4 for the purposes of general election of respondent no.3 / Cooperative Society.
Looking to the nature of controversy, I find that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing election petition under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the acceptance of nomination papers by the Election Officer. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: Section 91
