Bombay High Court Allows Election Petition Challenging Election of Respondent No.2 as Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Sakoli Constituency on Ground of Disqualification Under Section 9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951. Court holds that subsisting contracts with State Government at time of scrutiny of nomination papers disqualify candidate from contesting election.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 24
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sevakbhau Nirdhangi WaghayePatil, filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of respondent no.2, Rajesh s/o Lahanu Kashiwar, as a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Constituency No.62 Sakoli. The elections were held on 15.10.2014, and respondent no.2 was declared elected on 19.10.2014. The petitioner alleged that respondent no.2 was disqualified under Section 9A of the Act because he had subsisting contracts with the State Government for executing its works at the time of scrutiny of his nomination papers on 29.09.2014. The petitioner listed several contracts, including construction of an enclosure for tiger cubs in Pench Tiger Reserve, construction of compound wall at various locations, construction of check dams, cement concrete roads, anicuts, stop dams, weir cum causeways, percolation tanks, loose boulder check dams, gabion structures, wire crate check dams, cement nala bunds, farm ponds, wells, bore wells, pipelines, lift irrigation schemes, drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, field channels, water harvesting structures, recharge shafts, percolation wells, and various combinations thereof. The respondent no.2 denied the allegations and contended that the contracts were not subsisting on the relevant date. The court examined the evidence, including work orders and completion certificates, and found that the respondent no.2 had indeed entered into contracts with the State Government, and these contracts were subsisting on the date of scrutiny. The court held that the burden of proof initially lay on the petitioner, but once the petitioner established the existence of contracts, the burden shifted to the respondent to prove that they were not subsisting. The respondent failed to discharge this burden. Consequently, the court allowed the election petition, declared the election of respondent no.2 void, and ordered a fresh election.

Headnote

A) Election Law - Disqualification - Subsisting Contract - Section 9A Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The petitioner challenged the election of respondent no.2 on the ground that he had subsisting contracts with the State Government at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers. The court examined the evidence and held that the respondent no.2 had entered into contracts for construction works with the State Government, which were subsisting on the date of scrutiny. The court found that the respondent no.2 failed to prove that the contracts were not subsisting. Held that the respondent no.2 was disqualified under Section 9A and his election was void. (Paras 1-30)

B) Election Law - Burden of Proof - Disqualification - Section 9A Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The burden of proving disqualification lies on the petitioner, but once the petitioner establishes that the respondent had entered into contracts with the State Government, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that the contracts were not subsisting on the relevant date. The court held that the respondent failed to discharge this burden. (Paras 15-20)

C) Election Law - Relevant Date for Disqualification - Section 9A Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The relevant date for determining whether a contract is subsisting is the date of scrutiny of nomination papers. The court held that the contracts were subsisting on 29.09.2014, the date of scrutiny. (Paras 10-12)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent no.2 was disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on the ground that he had a subsisting contract with the State Government for executing its works at the time of scrutiny of his nomination papers, thereby attracting the disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Election petition allowed. Election of respondent no.2 from Constituency No.62 Sakoli to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly declared void. Respondent no.2 directed to pay costs. Fresh election to be held.

Law Points

  • Disqualification for election
  • Subsisting contract with State Government
  • Section 9A Representation of the People Act
  • 1951
  • Scrutiny of nomination papers
  • Date of scrutiny as relevant date
  • Burden of proof on petitioner
  • Strict proof of contract subsisting
  • Contract for construction of enclosure for tiger cubs
  • Contract for construction of compound wall
  • Contract for construction of check dam
  • Contract for construction of cement concrete road
  • Contract for construction of anicut
  • Contract for construction of stop dam
  • Contract for construction of weir cum causeway
  • Contract for construction of percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of loose boulder check dam
  • Contract for construction of gabion structure
  • Contract for construction of wire crate check dam
  • Contract for construction of cement nala bund
  • Contract for construction of farm pond
  • Contract for construction of well
  • Contract for construction of bore well
  • Contract for construction of pipeline
  • Contract for construction of lift irrigation scheme
  • Contract for construction of drip irrigation
  • Contract for construction of sprinkler irrigation
  • Contract for construction of field channel
  • Contract for construction of water harvesting structure
  • Contract for construction of recharge shaft
  • Contract for construction of percolation well
  • Contract for construction of check dam cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of stop dam cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of weir cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of anicut cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of gabion structure cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of loose boulder check dam cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of wire crate check dam cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of cement nala bund cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of farm pond cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of well cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of bore well cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of pipeline cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of lift irrigation scheme cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of drip irrigation cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of sprinkler irrigation cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of field channel cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of water harvesting structure cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of recharge shaft cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of percolation well cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of check dam cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of stop dam cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of weir cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of anicut cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of gabion structure cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of loose boulder check dam cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of wire crate check dam cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of cement nala bund cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of farm pond cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of well cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of bore well cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of pipeline cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of lift irrigation scheme cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of drip irrigation cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of sprinkler irrigation cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of field channel cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of water harvesting structure cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of recharge shaft cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
  • Contract for construction of percolation well cum percolation tank cum percolation tank
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 191

Election Petition No. 6/2014

2018-10-31

A.S. Chandurkar

Shri R.M. Bhangde and S.N. Tapadia for petitioner; Shri Shyam Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1; Shri Shashikant Borkar for respondent no.2

Sevakbhau Nirdhangi WaghayePatil

The Returning Officer, Sub Divisional Officer, Sakoli, District Bhandara; Rajesh s/o Lahanu Kashiwar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Election petition challenging the election of respondent no.2 as Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Sakoli constituency.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks declaration that election of respondent no.2 is void and for fresh election.

Filing Reason

Respondent no.2 allegedly had subsisting contracts with State Government at time of scrutiny of nomination papers, disqualifying him under Section 9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issues

Whether respondent no.2 had subsisting contracts with State Government on date of scrutiny of nomination papers (29.09.2014) attracting disqualification under Section 9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that respondent no.2 had entered into various contracts with State Government for construction works, which were subsisting on 29.09.2014, thus disqualified under Section 9A. Respondent no.2 denied the allegations and contended that the contracts were not subsisting on the relevant date.

Ratio Decidendi

A candidate is disqualified under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 if he has a subsisting contract with the State Government for executing its works at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers. The burden of proving that the contract is not subsisting lies on the candidate once the petitioner establishes the existence of the contract.

Judgment Excerpts

By this Election Petition filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the petitioner seeks to challenge the election of the respondent no.2 as Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Constituency No.62 Sakoli. The respondent no.2 had entered into various contracts with the State Government for executing its works and these contracts were subsisting on 29.09.2014 when the nomination papers were scrutinized.

Procedural History

Election petition filed on 08.12.2014 under Section 81 of Representation of the People Act, 1951. Arguments heard on 17.10.2018. Judgment pronounced on 31.10.2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 81, Section 9A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Election Petition Challenging Election of Respondent No.2 as Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Sakoli Constituency on Ground of Disqualification Under Section 9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951. Court ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Municipal Corporation's Revision Against Refund of Octroi on Replacement Engine. Replacement of defective part under warranty not a fresh import liable to octroi under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Indu...