Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Mahesh V. Javkar, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Commissioner (Regional Director of Municipal Administration) which set aside his nomination for the election of President of a Municipal Council. The nomination paper was submitted by the proposer, not by the petitioner himself. The Returning Officer had initially accepted the nomination overruling an objection regarding the word 'independent'. Respondent No.6 filed an appeal under Section 51(4) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The Commissioner allowed the appeal, holding that the nomination was invalid because the proposer was not an authorized representative of the petitioner as required by Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (Election of President) Rules, 1981 (as amended on 10th June, 2009). The petitioner argued that the appeal was not maintainable because Respondent No.6 was not a person aggrieved, that a new ground could not be raised in appeal, that there was compliance as evidence showed authorization, and that the form itself recognized the proposer as authorized. The court rejected these arguments, holding that Respondent No.6 was a person aggrieved as he had raised an objection before the Returning Officer, the new ground was based on admitted facts, the finding of fact was not perverse, and the form did not override the rule. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Commissioner's order.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Election of President - Nomination Paper - Rule 4 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (Election of President) Rules, 1981 - The nomination paper must be submitted either by the candidate or by an authorized representative. The proposer is not automatically an authorized representative. The Commissioner's finding that the proposer was not authorized was not perverse. (Paras 3-5)
B) Municipal Law - Appeal - Maintainability - Section 51(4) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - A person who has raised an objection before the Returning Officer is a person aggrieved and can maintain an appeal. The appeal by Respondent No.6 was maintainable. (Para 4)
C) Municipal Law - Appeal - Scope - New Ground - The Appellate Authority can consider a new ground if it arises from admitted facts and does not require fresh evidence. The ground that the proposer was not an authorized representative was based on the nomination paper itself. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner's order rejecting the petitioner's nomination on the ground that the proposer was not an authorized representative under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (Election of President) Rules, 1981 is valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Nomination paper must be submitted by candidate or authorized representative
- Proposer not automatically authorized representative
- Appeal under Section 51(4) maintainable by any person aggrieved
- New ground can be raised in appeal if based on admitted facts
- Finding of fact not perverse if supported by evidence
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (12) 44
WRIT PETITION NO.11209 OF 2011
Mr. A. V. Anturkar with Mr. Shreekant Gavand, for the Petitioner; Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1,4 and 5; Mr. P. S. Dani with Mr. S. M. Sabrad, for Respondent No.6
State of Maharashtra & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner setting aside the petitioner's nomination for election of President of a Municipal Council.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the Commissioner's order and to be declared as validly nominated candidate.
Filing Reason
The Commissioner allowed an appeal by Respondent No.6 and held that the petitioner's nomination was invalid because the proposer was not an authorized representative.
Previous Decisions
The Returning Officer had initially accepted the nomination overruling an objection regarding the word 'independent'. The Commissioner in appeal set aside that decision.
Issues
Whether the appeal under Section 51(4) was maintainable at the instance of Respondent No.6?
Whether a new ground (that the proposer was not an authorized representative) could be raised for the first time in appeal?
Whether the finding that the proposer was not an authorized representative is perverse?
Whether the form itself recognizes the proposer as an authorized representative?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Respondent No.6 was not a person aggrieved as he had only objected to the word 'independent'.
Petitioner argued that a completely new ground cannot be raised in appeal and factual controversy cannot be raised before the Appellate Authority.
Petitioner argued that there was compliance as evidence showed the proposer was authorized.
Petitioner argued that since Form 1 was not amended, the proposer is recognized as authorized representative.
Respondent No.6 argued that the appeal was maintainable and the ground was based on admitted facts.
Ratio Decidendi
The nomination paper must be submitted by the candidate or his authorized representative. The proposer is not automatically an authorized representative. The finding of fact by the Commissioner that the proposer was not authorized was not perverse. The appeal under Section 51(4) is maintainable by a person who raised an objection before the Returning Officer. A new ground based on admitted facts can be raised in appeal.
Judgment Excerpts
It is an admitted position that the objection which was raised before the Returning Officer/ Presiding Officer was only in respect of the word 'independent' and that objection was turned down and the Petitioner was declared as validly nominated candidate.
The Commissioner has recorded a finding of the fact that the proposer was not an authorized representative of the Petitioner. That finding of fact cannot be held to be perverse.
Procedural History
The petitioner's nomination was accepted by the Returning Officer. Respondent No.6 filed an appeal under Section 51(4) before the Commissioner, who allowed the appeal and set aside the nomination. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965: Section 51(4)
- Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (Election of President) Rules, 1981: Rule 4
