Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a former partner in M/s. Musale Construction, intended to contest the 2014 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election from 49-Saoner constituency as a Bhartiya Janata Party candidate. He submitted his nomination on 26.09.2014. Respondent no.3, an independent candidate, objected to the nomination alleging disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on the ground that the petitioner had subsisting contracts with the State Government. The petitioner replied that he, along with his wife and son, had retired from the partnership firm on 26.09.2014, thus no subsisting contract existed on the date of scrutiny (29.09.2014). The returning officer, however, rejected the nomination on 30.09.2014, citing the petitioner's declaration as 'Government Contractor' in the affidavit. The petitioner challenged the rejection in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on maintainability under Article 329(b) of the Constitution. An SLP to the Supreme Court was withdrawn on 14.10.2014. Polling occurred on 15.10.2014, and respondent no.1, a candidate of the Indian National Congress, was declared elected on 19.10.2014. The petitioner then filed the present election petition under Section 81 of the Act, seeking to declare the election void under Section 100(1)(c) on the ground of improper rejection of his nomination. The judgment text provided is incomplete, ending at paragraph 20, and does not include the court's analysis, decision, or ratio. Consequently, the crux of the judgment is unavailable.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the returning officer improperly rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner by applying Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, despite the petitioner's retirement from the partnership firm before the date of scrutiny?
Law Points
- Section 9A disqualification for subsisting government contracts
- Section 100(1)(c) grounds for declaring election void
- Effect of retirement from partnership on disqualification
- Date of scrutiny as relevant date for determining disqualification
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (04) 163
ELECTION PETITION NO.3/2014
F. T. Mirza for petitioner, Sunil Manohar (Sr. Adv.) with A. Naik for respondent no.1, S. S. Ghate for respondent no.3
Sonba s/o Gulabrao Musale
1. Sunil s/o Chhatrapal Kedar, 3. Manish s/o Arvind Mohod (Returning Officer deleted)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the election of the returned candidate from 49-Saoner Legislative Assembly Constituency on the ground of improper rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to declare the election of respondent no.1 as void and to quash the election.
Filing Reason
The returning officer rejected the petitioner's nomination on the ground that he had subsisting contracts with the State Government under Section 9A, despite the petitioner having retired from the partnership firm before the scrutiny date.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.375/2014) challenging the returning officer's rejection order, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of Article 329(b) of the Constitution. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP No.27988/2014) before the Supreme Court, but withdrew it on 14.10.2014.
Issues
Whether the returning officer improperly rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner by applying Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, despite the petitioner's retirement from the partnership firm before the date of scrutiny?
Whether the election of the returned candidate is void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 due to improper rejection of the petitioner's nomination?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner submits that he retired from the partnership firm M/s. Musale Construction on 26.09.2014, three days before the date of scrutiny (29.09.2014), and therefore there was no subsisting contract between him and the State Government on the date of scrutiny.
The returning officer wrongly relied on the mention of 'Government Contractor' in the affidavit (Form 26) without considering the retirement deed dated 26.09.2014, which proved that he was no longer a partner.
The relevant date for determining disqualification under Section 9A is the date of scrutiny of nomination, and since on that date no contract subsisted between the petitioner and the Government, the rejection was improper.
Judgment Excerpts
the petitioner along with his wife and son have retired from the partnership firm M/s. Musale Construction as partners on 26.09.2014
the relevant date to determine the disqualification under Section 9A of the Act would always be the date fixed for scrutiny of nomination
Procedural History
On 26.09.2014, petitioner retired from partnership firm M/s. Musale Construction. He submitted nomination papers the same day. The last date for nomination was 27.09.2014. Scrutiny of nominations occurred on 29.09.2014, where respondent no.3 filed an objection alleging subsisting government contracts. Petitioner filed reply asserting retirement and no subsisting contracts. Returning officer rejected nomination on 30.09.2014. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.375/2014 which was dismissed by Division Bench on maintainability under Article 329(b). Petitioner's SLP No.27988/2014 before Supreme Court was withdrawn on 14.10.2014. Polling held on 15.10.2014. Votes counted on 19.10.2014 and respondent no.1 declared elected. Election petition presented on 01.12.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: 9A, 81, 100(1)(c)
- Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: Rule 66, Form 22
- Constitution of India: Article 329(b)
