Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sau. Chhaya Waghmare, was a candidate for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Virahit. The election was scheduled for 29/8/2010, with nomination filing time between 11 A.M. and 12 noon. The petitioner filed her nomination at 1:30 P.M., which was accepted by the Election Officer. The respondent no.1, Manoj Raut, filed his nomination at 11:55 A.M. The election was held, and the petitioner won by a margin of 5:2. After the election, the respondent no.1 filed an application under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the Additional Collector, challenging the petitioner's election on the ground that her nomination was filed after the prescribed time. The Additional Collector set aside the election. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court observed that the Election Officer had accepted the nomination and the election was conducted without any objection from the respondent no.1 at the time of scrutiny. The court held that the validity of the nomination cannot be challenged after the election, as the respondent no.1 had participated in the election and only raised the objection after losing. The court set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner and restored the election of the petitioner. The court also directed that the petitioner be allowed to function as Sarpanch.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination Filing Time - Acceptance by Election Officer - The petitioner filed her nomination for the post of Sarpanch at 1:30 P.M. whereas the prescribed time was between 11 A.M. and 12 noon. The Election Officer accepted the nomination and the election was held, resulting in the petitioner's victory. The respondent challenged the election under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Additional Collector set aside the election, and the Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal. The High Court held that once the Election Officer accepted the nomination and the election was conducted, the validity of the nomination cannot be challenged after the election, especially when the respondent participated in the election without objection. The court set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner and restored the election of the petitioner. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner was justified in rejecting the appeal against the order of the Additional Collector which set aside the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch on the ground that her nomination was filed after the prescribed time.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, and restored the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch. The court directed that the petitioner be allowed to function as Sarpanch.
Law Points
- Election law
- Nomination filing time
- Acceptance by Election Officer
- Estoppel
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act
- 1958 Section 33(5)
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 125
Writ Petition No.1774 of 2011
Shri Arun Mahakale for petitioner, Shri K.S. Malokar for respondent no.1, Shri C.N. Adgokar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.4 and 5
Sau. Chhaya w/o Sandeep Waghmare
Manoj s/o Arun Raut and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Additional Commissioner rejecting appeal against order of Additional Collector setting aside election of petitioner as Sarpanch.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of the orders of Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner and restoration of her election as Sarpanch.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's nomination for Sarpanch was filed after the prescribed time but was accepted by the Election Officer. After she won the election, the respondent challenged it under Section 33(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and the Additional Collector set aside the election.
Previous Decisions
Additional Collector set aside the election of the petitioner. Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the Additional Commissioner was justified in rejecting the appeal against the order of the Additional Collector which set aside the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch on the ground that her nomination was filed after the prescribed time.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the nomination was accepted by the Election Officer and the election was held without any objection, and the respondent participated in the election. Respondent argued that the nomination was filed after the prescribed time and therefore the election was invalid.
Ratio Decidendi
Once the Election Officer accepts a nomination and the election is conducted, the validity of the nomination cannot be challenged after the election, especially when the respondent participated in the election without raising any objection at the time of scrutiny.
Judgment Excerpts
The above petition takes exception to the order dated 28/1/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order passed by the Additional Collector came to be rejected.
Though the nomination was filed by the petitioner at 1.30 P.M., the Election Officer found the same in order and subsequently, the election to the post of Sarpanch was held wherein the petitioner was elected by a margin of 5:2 vis-a-vis respondent no.1 herein.
In my view, the Additional Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is therefore liable to be set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed nomination for Sarpanch on 29/8/2010 at 1:30 P.M., after the prescribed time. The Election Officer accepted it. Election held, petitioner won. Respondent no.1 filed application under Section 33(5) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before Additional Collector, who set aside election on 28/1/2011. Petitioner appealed to Additional Commissioner, who dismissed appeal. Petitioner then filed writ petition in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958: 33(5)
