Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Amol Sahebrao Solanke, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the acceptance of the nomination of respondent No.3, Sunil Namdeorao Harne, for the elections to the Gram Panchayat of Kanzara village, scheduled to be held on 4 August 2015. The petitioner was a candidate from Ward No.2 of the same panchayat. The returning officers were respondent No.1 (Tahsildar, Kanzara) and respondent No.2 (Anil Bhaurao Yewtikar). The petitioner's grievance was that respondent No.3 was disqualified by an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, and therefore his nomination ought to have been rejected. However, the returning officer accepted the nomination without considering the disqualification order. The court heard the petition by consent of both parties. The court found that the returning officer had failed to apply his mind to the disqualification order, which was a clear statutory bar. The court held that the acceptance of the nomination was illegal and set it aside. The court allowed the writ petition and directed that the nomination of respondent No.3 be rejected. The court also made the rule absolute.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Disqualification of Candidate - Returning Officer's Duty - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The returning officer failed to consider the disqualification order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, which disqualified respondent No.3 from contesting elections. The court held that the returning officer ought to have applied his mind to the disqualification order and rejected the nomination. (Paras 1-4) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court can interfere in election matters where the returning officer acts without jurisdiction or in violation of statutory provisions. The court allowed the petition and set aside the acceptance of nomination. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the returning officer was justified in accepting the nomination of respondent No.3 despite a subsisting disqualification order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the acceptance of nomination of respondent No.3, and directed the returning officer to reject the nomination. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Election law
- Disqualification of candidates
- Returning officer's duty to scrutinize nominations
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
