Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Vivek Bhaiyasaheb Deshmukh and Mohd. Nadeem Mohd. Rashid, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the Collector, Yavatmal. The Collector had invoked Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 to postpone the election to the Board of Directors of respondent no.3 society (Shri Babasaheb Naik Kapus Utpadak Sahakari Sut Girni Maryadit) from the Cotton Growers Constituency. The election program had been published by respondent no.2, the Election Officer, with the last date for filing nominations being 23.02.2011 and withdrawal period from 25.02.2011 to 11.03.2011. One Rajabhau Yenkar, who had filed his nomination, expired on 08.03.2011, before the list of contesting candidates was declared and before the last date of withdrawal. The Collector, treating this as a death of a contesting candidate, stayed and postponed the election. The petitioners argued that Rajabhau Yenkar was not a 'contesting candidate' as defined under Rule 26 of the Rules, since his nomination had not been finally accepted by the Returning Officer. The Court examined Rules 26 and 29 and held that Rule 29 applies only when a contesting candidate dies, i.e., a candidate whose nomination has been accepted after scrutiny. Since Rajabhau Yenkar's nomination was not finally accepted, he was merely a nominee and not a contesting candidate. Therefore, the Collector had no jurisdiction to invoke Rule 29. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to proceed with the election from the Cotton Growers Constituency in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Societies Law - Election Postponement - Death of Candidate - Rule 29 of Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 - The Collector postponed election from Cotton Growers Constituency after one nominee died before scrutiny. The Court held that Rule 29 applies only to death of a 'contesting candidate' as defined in Rule 26, i.e., a candidate whose nomination has been accepted after scrutiny. Since the deceased was only a nominee whose nomination was not finally accepted, the Collector had no power to postpone the election. (Paras 2-5) B) Cooperative Societies Law - Definition of Contesting Candidate - Rule 26 of Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 - The Court interpreted Rule 26 to mean that a person becomes a contesting candidate only after his nomination is accepted by the Returning Officer following scrutiny. A mere filing of nomination does not confer the status of contesting candidate. (Paras 4-5) C) Cooperative Societies Law - Exercise of Power under Rule 29 - Condition Precedent - The power under Rule 29 can be exercised only upon receipt of a report of death of a contesting candidate. In the absence of such a report and where the deceased was not a contesting candidate, the order of postponement is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Collector could invoke Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 to postpone an election when a candidate who had filed nomination but whose nomination was not finally accepted died before the last date of withdrawal
Final Decision
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the Collector, Yavatmal, and directed the respondents to proceed with the election from the Cotton Growers Constituency in accordance with law. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Rule 29 of Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules
- 1971 applies only to death of a contesting candidate
- not a mere nominee
- Rule 26 defines contesting candidate as one whose nomination is accepted after scrutiny
- Collector cannot postpone election based on death of a candidate whose nomination was not finally accepted
