Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gyanba s/o Trimbakrao Shirale, challenged the orders of the District Deputy Registrar, Parbhani, which allowed appeals filed by respondent nos. 8 to 10 and held their nominations valid for the election of the Market Committee, Tadkalas, District Parbhani. The Returning Officer had rejected the nominations of respondent nos. 8 to 10 on the ground that they did not submit the declaration required under Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967. The District Deputy Registrar, in appeal, set aside the rejection and declared the nominations valid. The petitioner contended that the requirement of submitting the declaration is mandatory and non-submission justifies rejection. The court examined Rule 45 and held that the requirement is mandatory, as the rule uses the word 'shall' and the declaration is a substantive requirement. The court found that the appellate authority erred in law by treating the requirement as directory. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders of the District Deputy Registrar, and restored the rejection of nominations by the Returning Officer.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination - Declaration under Rule 45 - Mandatory Requirement - The requirement of submitting a declaration as per Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 is mandatory and not directory - Non-submission of such declaration renders the nomination invalid - The court held that the Returning Officer correctly rejected the nominations of respondent nos. 8 to 10 for failure to submit the declaration - The appellate authority erred in setting aside the rejection - The writ petition was allowed and the orders of the District Deputy Registrar were quashed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the requirement of submitting a declaration under Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 is mandatory and whether non-submission justifies rejection of nomination.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders of the District Deputy Registrar, and restored the rejection of nominations by the Returning Officer.
Law Points
- Election law
- Nomination
- Declaration
- Rule 45
- Mandatory requirement
- Rejection of nomination
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 82
Writ Petition No. 4044 of 2017
Ghatol Patil Shahaji B. & U. M. Maske-patil for Petitioner, S.R. Yadav Lonikar for Respondents, S.B. Sontakke for Respondent No. 8
Gyanba s/o Trimbakrao Shirale
The State of Maharashtra and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of District Deputy Registrar allowing appeals and holding nominations valid for election of Market Committee.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of orders of District Deputy Registrar and restoration of rejection of nominations by Returning Officer.
Filing Reason
The Returning Officer rejected nominations of respondent nos. 8 to 10 for non-submission of declaration under Rule 45; the appellate authority set aside the rejection.
Previous Decisions
Returning Officer rejected nominations; District Deputy Registrar allowed appeals and declared nominations valid.
Issues
Whether the requirement of submitting a declaration under Rule 45 is mandatory or directory.
Whether non-submission of declaration justifies rejection of nomination.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the requirement of declaration under Rule 45 is mandatory and non-submission justifies rejection.
Respondents contended that the requirement is directory and the appellate authority correctly set aside the rejection.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement of submitting a declaration under Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 is mandatory. Non-submission of such declaration renders the nomination invalid and justifies rejection by the Returning Officer.
Judgment Excerpts
The nominations of respondent nos. 8 to 10 were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that, the said respondents did not submit declaration as is required under Rule 45...
The requirement of submitting a declaration under Rule 45 is mandatory and not directory. Non-submission of such declaration renders the nomination invalid.
Procedural History
The Returning Officer rejected nominations of respondent nos. 8 to 10. They appealed to the District Deputy Registrar, who allowed the appeals and declared nominations valid. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging those orders.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967: Rule 45
