Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by Chandrashekhar Shivram Mudkanna and Shamshoddin Ghudulal Jamadar against the State of Maharashtra and others, challenging the election process of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Murum. The petitioners contended that the names of certain ineligible persons were included in the voters list for the election of the Market Committee. They sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash the voters list and direct the respondents to conduct the election afresh. The court noted that the election process had already commenced and was at an advanced stage. The petitioners had an alternative remedy of filing an election petition after the election. The court relied on the principle that once the election process has started, it should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to challenge the election by way of an election petition under the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. The court did not find any merit in the petitions and refused to stall the election process.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference in Election Process - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioners challenged inclusion of names in voters list after election process had commenced - Court held that once election process has started, it should not be interfered with and the appropriate remedy is to file an election petition after the election - Held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised to stall the election process (Paras 5-7). B) Cooperative Law - Election of Market Committee - Voters List - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 11 - Petitioners alleged that names of ineligible persons were included in voters list - Court held that such objections should have been raised before the election process commenced and the remedy lies in filing an election petition under the Act - Held that the election process cannot be halted at this stage (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the election process of an Agriculture Produce Market Committee after the election process has commenced, particularly regarding inclusion of names in the voters list.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The court held that the election process should not be interfered with at this stage and the petitioners may challenge the election by way of an election petition under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963.
Law Points
- Election process cannot be interfered with once commenced
- challenge to inclusion of names in voters list must be raised before election
- alternative remedy of election petition available
- no writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if election process is at advanced stage
