Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rukhmina Rajesh Dange, was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Vyad, District Washim, on 9 August 2018, securing seven votes against respondent No.1 Kailash Natthuji Pawar's four votes. The election meeting was convened by the Deputy Collector, who appointed the Tahsildar as Presiding Officer. The Tahsildar, however, delegated the task to the Circle Officer. Respondent No.1 participated in the election without raising any objection to the Circle Officer's authority. After losing, respondent No.1 filed a dispute under Section 33(5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, challenging the election on the ground that the Circle Officer was not authorised to preside, and also alleging that the petitioner was disqualified under Section 14(1)(ji) for having three children. The Collector set aside the election, holding that the Tahsildar could not delegate his authority. The Divisional Commissioner confirmed this order. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High Court framed the issue of whether a candidate who participates without objection can later challenge the election on the ground of lack of authority of the Presiding Officer. The court held that respondent No.1, by participating without protest, was estopped from challenging the election on that ground. The court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner, and restored the petitioner's election as Sarpanch. The court did not address the disqualification issue as it was not necessary for the decision.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Estoppel by Conduct - Waiver of Objection - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, Section 33(2) - A candidate who participates in an election meeting without objecting to the authority of the Presiding Officer is estopped from challenging the election on that ground after losing. The court held that the respondent No.1, having participated in the election without protest, could not later challenge the validity of the meeting on the ground that the Circle Officer was not authorised to preside. (Paras 1, 6-8) B) Election Law - Delegation of Authority - Presiding Officer - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, Section 33(2) - The Collector appointed the Tahsildar to preside over the meeting; the Tahsildar delegated the task to the Circle Officer. The court noted that the Tahsildar's delegation was not permissible under Section 33(2), but since the respondent No.1 did not object at the time, the election could not be invalidated on that ground. (Paras 2-3, 6-8) C) Election Law - Disqualification - Three Children - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, Section 14(1)(ji) - The respondent No.1 also challenged the petitioner's election on the ground that she had three children and was disqualified. The Collector and Divisional Commissioner did not decide this issue, and the court did not address it as the main ground of challenge failed. (Paras 2, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate who unsuccessfully contested an election without raising any objection can thereafter challenge the election on the ground that it was conducted by a Returning Officer who had no authority in law to conduct the meeting.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Collector and Divisional Commissioner, and restored the petitioner's election as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Vyad.
Law Points
- Estoppel by conduct
- Waiver of objection
- Election law
- Delegation of authority
- Section 33(2) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959
