Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Karimuddin @ Karimlala Kazi, was elected as a Member of the Municipal Corporation from Prabhag No.21B on 16.04.2012. On 20.04.2012, an election petition was filed under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, challenging his election on the ground that he was disqualified under Section 10 of the Act because an order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court on 25.06.2007 sentencing him to one year imprisonment was still operating. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition on 16.01.2015, declaring the petitioner disqualified and setting aside his election. The petitioner challenged this decision by way of a writ petition. The High Court noted that the petitioner was convicted under Section 448 read with Section 34 IPC for house-trespass and sentenced to one year imprisonment. The court held that the conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude disqualified the petitioner under Section 10 of the Act. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the decision of the Election Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Disqualification of Councillor - Section 10 of Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Conviction for Offence Involving Moral Turpitude - The petitioner was convicted under Section 448 IPC and sentenced to one year imprisonment. The court held that the conviction for house-trespass involves moral turpitude, and the petitioner was disqualified from being a councillor under Section 10 of the Act. The Election Tribunal's decision setting aside the election was upheld. (Paras 2-5)
B) Election Law - Election Petition - Section 16 of Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Challenge to Election on Ground of Disqualification - The election petition was filed under Section 16 challenging the petitioner's election on the ground that he was disqualified under Section 10 due to his conviction. The court held that the Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the disqualification and correctly set aside the election. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was disqualified under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, due to his conviction under Section 448 IPC, and whether the Election Tribunal correctly set aside his election.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of the Election Tribunal that the petitioner was disqualified under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and his election was rightly set aside.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act
- 1949
- applies upon conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude
- even if the sentence is less than two years
- the Election Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide disqualification
- the conviction under Section 448 IPC (house-trespass) is an offence involving moral turpitude.
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 135
Writ Petition No.782 of 2015
Shri Anil Mardikar, Senior Counsel with Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for Petitioner; Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Shri Shailesh A. Sahu, Advocate holding for Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Karimuddin @ Karimlala Kazi
Deepak Shankarlal Jaiswal and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the decision of the Election Tribunal setting aside the petitioner's election as a municipal councillor on the ground of disqualification under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order of the Election Tribunal dated 16.01.2015 and to uphold his election.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was convicted under Section 448 IPC and sentenced to one year imprisonment, which the respondent claimed disqualified him under Section 10 of the Act.
Previous Decisions
The Election Tribunal allowed the election petition on 16.01.2015, declaring the petitioner disqualified and setting aside his election.
Issues
Whether the petitioner was disqualified under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, due to his conviction under Section 448 IPC.
Whether the Election Tribunal correctly set aside the petitioner's election.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the conviction under Section 448 IPC did not involve moral turpitude and thus did not attract disqualification under Section 10.
The respondent argued that the conviction for house-trespass is an offence involving moral turpitude and the petitioner was disqualified.
Ratio Decidendi
A conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, such as house-trespass under Section 448 IPC, disqualifies a person from being a councillor under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, even if the sentence is less than two years.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 448 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer an imprisonment for a period of one year.
The election petition has been allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur on 16.01.2015 declaring that the petitioner was disqualified for being a Councilor from Prabhag No.21B of the Municipal Corporation of City Chandrapur and his election is set aside.
Procedural History
The petitioner was elected on 16.04.2012. An election petition was filed on 20.04.2012 under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition on 16.01.2015. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court on an unspecified date, which was heard and dismissed on 26.08.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949: Section 10, Section 16
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 448, Section 34
