Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Narayan Dinbaji Jambhule, filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the decision of the Returning Officer dated 30th September 2014 accepting the nomination paper of respondent No.5, Dr. Deorao Madguji Holi, for the 68 Gadchiroli (S.T.) Legislative Assembly Constituency. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.5 was a government servant and thus disqualified under Section 9 of the Act, which disqualifies a person having a contract with the government. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.5 was employed as a Medical Officer in the Government of Maharashtra and had a contract for supply of goods or services. The court heard arguments from both sides. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Returning Officer failed to consider the disqualification. The respondent's counsel contended that mere government service does not attract Section 9, and the petitioner failed to prove any contract. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 9 and noted that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish that the candidate had a contract with the government. The court found that the petitioner did not produce any evidence of such a contract, and the nomination paper was properly accepted. The court dismissed the election petition, upholding the Returning Officer's decision.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Disqualification of Candidate - Section 9 Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Burden of Proof - The petitioner challenged the acceptance of nomination of respondent No.5, a government servant, on the ground that he had a contract with the government. The court held that the burden to prove disqualification lies on the petitioner, and mere government service does not disqualify under Section 9. The petitioner failed to produce any evidence of a contract, and the Returning Officer's decision was upheld. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Returning Officer erred in accepting the nomination paper of respondent No.5, a government servant, despite alleged disqualification under Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the election petition, holding that the petitioner failed to prove that respondent No.5 was disqualified under Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Returning Officer's decision to accept the nomination was upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on election petitioner to establish disqualification
- Section 9 of Representation of the People Act
- 1951 requires proof of government contract
- Returning Officer's decision presumptively valid
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (01) 115
ELECTION PETITION NO.4 OF 2014
Shri P.S. Wathore for petitioner, Shri G.N. Khanzode for respondent No.5
Election Commission of India (deleted), Chief Electoral Officer (deleted), Collector/District Election Officer (deleted), Returning Officer (deleted), Dr. Deorao Madguji Holi, Atmaram Bhagashri Dharmraobaba, Kesari Rushiji Usendi, Vilas Shamrao Kodape, Saguna Penta Talandi, Ranjeeta Vilas Kodape, Kusum Harba Alam, Moreshwar Ramchandra Kinake, Diwakar Gulab Pendam, Devidas Govinda Madavi, Jaishree Vijay Welda, Sunanda Soma Atla
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Election petition challenging acceptance of nomination paper of a candidate alleged to be disqualified under Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought declaration that the Returning Officer's decision dated 30th September 2014 accepting the nomination of respondent No.5 was illegal and void.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that respondent No.5, a government servant, was disqualified under Section 9 of the Act due to having a contract with the government.
Previous Decisions
Returning Officer accepted the nomination paper of respondent No.5 on 30th September 2014.
Issues
Whether respondent No.5 was disqualified under Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for having a contract with the government.
Whether the Returning Officer erred in accepting the nomination paper of respondent No.5.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent No.5 was a government servant and had a contract with the government, thus disqualified under Section 9.
Respondent No.5 argued that mere government service does not disqualify under Section 9, and petitioner failed to prove any contract.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proof lies on the election petitioner to establish that the candidate is disqualified under Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Mere government service does not constitute a disqualification; there must be a contract with the government. The petitioner failed to produce any evidence of such a contract.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short “Act of 1951”) praying that the decision of the Returning Officer dated 30th September, 2014 accepting the nomination paper of respondent No.5 Dr. Deorao Madguji Holi, be declared illegal and void.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Election Petition No.4 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the acceptance of nomination of respondent No.5. The court heard arguments and delivered judgment on 19th January 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 81, Section 9
