Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi, a defeated candidate in the Sarpanch election of Grampanchayat Fagne, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the election of respondent No. 5, Vilas Vasantrao Chaudhari, as Sarpanch on 11.10.2017. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 5 was disqualified for five years by an order dated 03.11.2014 passed by the Election Commissioner through the Collector, Dhule, for contesting Zilla Parishad membership election in 2013. The petitioner sought a declaration that he be elected as Sarpanch for the remaining term, an enquiry against the Returning Officer, and restraint on respondent No. 5 from enjoying benefits of the post. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, which provides for filing an election petition. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the dispute regarding the validity of an election must be raised through an election petition under the Act, and not by way of a writ petition under Article 226. The court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, leaving the petitioner free to avail the alternative remedy. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the disqualification.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Election Petition - The petitioner, a defeated candidate, challenged the election of respondent No. 5 as Sarpanch on the ground of disqualification under an order dated 03.11.2014. The court held that the election dispute cannot be entertained under Article 226 as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, which provides for an election petition. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election of respondent No. 5 as Sarpanch can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of alleged disqualification, or whether the petitioner must avail the alternative remedy under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961?
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Election dispute
- Disqualification
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
- Maintainability
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 27
WRIT PETITION NO. 13489 OF 2017
S. V. GANGAPURWALA, A. M. DHAVALE
Mr Mukul Kulkarni, Mrs Vaishali N. PatilJadhav, Mr Shivaji T. Shelke, Mr V. D. Sapkal
Shri. Gokul Chandanmal Sangvi
The State of Maharashtra, The Maharashtra State Election Commission, The Returning Officer, The Gram Panchayat, Shri Vilas Vasantrao Chaudhari
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging election of Sarpanch on ground of disqualification.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of election of respondent No. 5 as Sarpanch, declaration that petitioner be elected as Sarpanch, enquiry against Returning Officer, and restraint on respondent No. 5 from enjoying benefits of the post.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that respondent No. 5 was disqualified for five years by order dated 03.11.2014, yet was allowed to contest and win the Sarpanch election on 11.10.2017.
Issues
Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge the election of a Sarpanch on the ground of disqualification when an alternative remedy under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 is available.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent No. 5 was disqualified by order dated 03.11.2014 and thus his election as Sarpanch on 11.10.2017 was illegal.
Respondents argued that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 by way of an election petition.
Ratio Decidendi
An election dispute regarding the validity of an election must be raised through an election petition under the relevant Act, and not by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as an efficacious alternative remedy exists.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, a defeated candidate in the Sarpanch election, seeks following reliefs...
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, in the year 2013 respondent No. 5 had contested election for membership of Zilla Parishad, Dhule. The Election Commissioner (R2) through the Collector, Dhule, by order dt. 03.11.2014 disqualified him and banned him for five years...
The petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13489 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the election of respondent No. 5 as Sarpanch. The court heard the matter at the admission stage with consent of parties and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961: Section 16
- Constitution of India: Article 226
