Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Vitthal Awate, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging two orders: (1) an order dated 14 December 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 5276 of 2017, and (2) an order dated 31 July 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Entry No. 3795 of 2018. The background of the dispute is that elections for the Gram Panchayat of Shelgaon, Taluka Khed, District Pune were held between 22 September 2017 and 17 October 2017 for the term 2017-2022. The petitioner and respondent No. 1, Nagesh Navnath Awate, were contesting for the post of Sarpanch. The election was held on 16 October 2017 and counting took place on 17 October 2017. Respondent No. 1 secured 341 votes while the petitioner secured 339 votes, losing by a margin of 2 votes. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1, at the time of filing his nomination form, had mentioned his age as 21 years, which is the minimum age requirement under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. However, the petitioner claimed that respondent No. 1 was actually below 21 years of age and thus not qualified to contest. Instead of filing an election petition under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, the petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, seeking an investigation into the age of respondent No. 1. The Magistrate allowed the application and directed the police to investigate. Respondent No. 1 challenged that order before the Sessions Court, which dismissed his revision. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the maintainability of the criminal proceedings. It noted that Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 provides a specific remedy for challenging the election of a Sarpanch by way of an election petition before the prescribed authority. The court held that the remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be used to circumvent the specific statutory remedy. The orders passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Court were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed both the impugned orders, and directed that the parties may avail the remedy of election petition if so advised.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Challenge to Election of Sarpanch - Maintainability - Sections 15, 16 Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The petitioner challenged the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch on the ground that he was underage at the time of filing nomination. The Magistrate and Sessions Court entertained the application under Section 156(3) CrPC and directed investigation. The High Court held that the election of a Sarpanch can only be challenged by an election petition under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and not by a criminal miscellaneous application. The orders passed by the courts below were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. (Paras 1-12) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3) CrPC - Application for Investigation - Not Maintainable for Election Disputes - The court held that a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be used to circumvent the specific remedy of an election petition provided under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order investigation into the age of the elected Sarpanch. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal miscellaneous application challenging the election of a Sarpanch are sustainable in law, given that the remedy lies by way of an election petition under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 14 December 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 5276 of 2017, and the order dated 31 July 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Entry No. 3795 of 2018. The court held that the remedy to challenge the election of a Sarpanch lies by way of an election petition under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and not by a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The parties were given liberty to avail the remedy of election petition if so advised.
Law Points
- Election petition is the only remedy to challenge election of Sarpanch under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959
- Section 15
- Criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide election disputes
- Writ of certiorari lies against orders passed without jurisdiction
