Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Milind Shreeram Tayade, was elected as a member of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), Amravati, from a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category in the farmer's constituency. The election was held on 15.09.2015 and votes were counted on 16.09.2015. After counting, respondent no.9, a contesting candidate, requested a recount, which was accepted by the Returning Officer. Upon recount, the petitioner received 239 votes and respondent no.1 received 228 votes. Respondent no.1 then filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Amravati (respondent no.2), who by order dated 04.04.2016 allowed the appeal and directed rescrutiny and recount of all 892 ballot papers. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and the Rules framed thereunder. The court noted that the Commissioner's order did not record any finding of material irregularity or illegality in the counting process. The recount was ordered merely on the basis of a request by respondent no.1, without any evidence of any irregularity. The High Court held that such an order cannot be sustained and set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Recount of Votes - Material Irregularity - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Rules 1967 - The Commissioner allowed appeal and ordered rescrutiny and recount of all 892 ballot papers without any finding of material irregularity or illegality in the counting process. The High Court held that such an order cannot be sustained as there was no evidence of any irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes. The recount was ordered merely on the basis of a request by a contesting candidate, which is insufficient. (Paras 1-10)
B) Election Law - Recount of Votes - Grounds for Recount - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Rules 1967 - The High Court reiterated that recount of votes can be ordered only if there is a prima facie case of material irregularity or illegality in the counting process. Mere request by a candidate or narrow margin of votes does not justify recount. The Commissioner's order was set aside as it lacked any such finding. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner could order rescrutiny and recount of all ballot papers in an APMC election without any material irregularity or illegality in the counting process.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.
Law Points
- Election recount
- material irregularity
- rescrutiny of ballot papers
- Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee election
- Bombay High Court
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 126
Writ Petition No.2294 of 2016
Mr. A.S. Kilor for Petitioner, Mr. Raj Wakode for Respondent No.1, Mr. S.B. Bissa, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
Milind s/o Shreeram Tayade
Sau. Nalini w/o Anil Barade, The Commissioner, Amravati Division, The Collector, Amravati District, The Returning Officer, Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, Amravati, Shri Prakash s/o Tukaram Khadase, Shri Dilip s/o Eknathrao Dhoke, Madan s/o Bhimrao Bhalerao, Shri Vilas s/o Ramkrishna Madar, Shri Laxman s/o Barkuji Meshram
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Commissioner directing rescrutiny and recount of ballot papers in APMC election.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 04.04.2016 passed by Commissioner, Amravati, directing rescrutiny and recount of all 892 ballot papers.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was elected as member of APMC, but respondent no.1's appeal was allowed by Commissioner ordering recount without any material irregularity.
Previous Decisions
Returning Officer had already conducted a recount on request of respondent no.9, after which petitioner was declared elected with 239 votes against respondent no.1's 228 votes.
Issues
Whether the Commissioner could order rescrutiny and recount of all ballot papers without any material irregularity or illegality in the counting process.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Commissioner's order was without jurisdiction as there was no material irregularity or illegality in the counting process.
Respondent no.1 argued that the recount was necessary as there was a narrow margin of votes and irregularities in counting.
Ratio Decidendi
Recount of votes can be ordered only if there is a prima facie case of material irregularity or illegality in the counting process. Mere request by a candidate or narrow margin of votes does not justify recount. The Commissioner's order lacked any finding of irregularity and hence was unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition, the petitioner, a person elected as member of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Amravati, from a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category in farmer’s constituency, has challenged order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the respondent no.2- Commissioner, Amravati , whereby appeal of respondent no.1, a contesting candidate, has been allowed and direction has been given to rescrutinise and recount all the 892 ballot papers polled in the election for the said post of member.
Upon recounting of votes, it was found that the petitioner had received 239 votes while the respondent no.1 had received 228 votes.
Procedural History
Election held on 15.09.2015, counting on 16.09.2015. Recount requested by respondent no.9 and conducted by Returning Officer. Petitioner declared elected. Respondent no.1 filed appeal before Commissioner. Commissioner allowed appeal on 04.04.2016 ordering rescrutiny and recount. Petitioner filed writ petition in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963:
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967:
