SARLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of petitions involve a common question as to whether the Returning Officer is vested with any right to add to, amend, vary or rescind the result of election after the same is declared by him under Rule 34 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules 1959 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1959) and, therefore, these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) FACTS in W. P. No. 2697/2000 : The petitioner impugns the Corrigendum/order dated 10-6-2000 issued by the respondent-Returning Officer under which he modified the results of the election of the Gram Panchayat, Umali, Taluka Malkapur, District Buldhana, which were held on 9-6-2000. The petitioner contested the said election from Ward No. 1 which is multimember constituency comprising of three seats. Out of three seats, one is reserved for other Backward Class candidate, one for Woman General category and the remaining one was open. The petitioner contested the election from Woman General Category while the respondent No. 5 contested the election from General category. On 10-6-2000, in accordance with Rule 34 (1) of the Rules of 1959, the Returning Officer declared the petitioner as elected from open/general category. But subsequently, by the impugned corrigendum, on the same day, modified the result and instead of the petitioner, declared the respondent No. 5 Gulab s/o Motiram Dhoran as elected from open/general category, relying upon the notification No. RNA 1097/pk 17197 dated 20th October, 1997, claiming to have exercised such a right under Clause 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which is impugned in this petition. Writ Petition No. 2698/2000: The election to the Gram Panchayat Belad, Tahsil Malkapur, District Akola were held on 9-6-2000. The petitioner, contested the election from Ward No. 2 which is multimember constituency comprising of three seats, one seat reserved for other Backward Class category, one for Woman General Category and the remaining one is for open/general category. The petitioner contested election from Woman General category, while the respondent No. 5 contested the election from open/general category. On 10-6-2000, the Returning Officer, in accordance with Rule 34 (1) of the Rules of 1959, declared the petitioner as elected from the open/general category, but, subsequently, modified the result by issuing a corrigendum on the same day i. e. 10-6-2000 and declared the respondent No. 5 Eknath Vishwanath Sambre as elected in place of the petitioner, relying on the same notification issued by the State Election Commission, and in exercise of the powers under Clause 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which is impugned in this petition. Writ Petition No. 2702/2000 : The elections to the Gram Panchayat Aland, Taluka Malkapur, District Buldhana, were held on 9-6-2000. The petitioner contested the election from Ward No. 1, which is a multimember ward comprising of three seats; one reserved for Other Backward Class category, one reserved for Woman General category and the remaining one for open category. On 10-6-2000, the Returning Officer declared that the petitioner was elected from open/general category in accordance with Rule 34 (1) of the Rules of 1959, but immediately thereafter, issued a corrigendum on 10-6-2000 itself, modified the result and declared respondent No. 5 Gopal Mitharam Warade, as having declared elected from the open/general category, instead of the petitioner relying on the same notification issued by the State Election Commission, and in exercise of powers under section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which is impugned in this petition. Writ Petition No. 2780/2000 : The elections to the Gram Panchayat Malegaon were held on 9-6-2000. The petitioner contested the election from Ward No. 4, which is a multimember constituency comprising of three seats; one seat reserved for Woman belonging to S. T. category, on reserved for Other Backward Class category and third one seats was for general category. The Returning Officer declared the result on 10-6-2000, in accordance with Rule 34 (1) of the Rules of 1959, and declared the petitioner as elected, but after about one month, the Returning Officer again issued another declaration on 5-7-2000 and thereby declared the respondent No. 3 Gajanan Narayan Sareskar as elected candidate in place of the petitioner, which is impugned in this petition. Writ Petition No. 2901/2000 : On 9-6-2000, elections to the Gram Panchayat Hiwarkhed took place. On 10-6-2000, the results were declared. The petitioner contested the election from Ward No. 2 which was multimember constituency of three seats; one seat was reserved for Other Backward Class candidate and two were for open/general category. The petitioner filed his nomination form from reserved category and the respondent No. 4 filed his nomination from open category. On declaration of result, one Shyam Bhopale was declared as elected to the post from open category. Election Petition No. 2 of 2000 came to be filed by the respondent No. 4 on 25-6-2000. Thereafter, during the pendency of the said election petition, the Returning Officer amended the results on 10th August, 2000 and declared the respondent No. 4 Dulekha Ibadullakha as elected, which declaration is impugned in this petition. Writ Petition No. 2910/2000 : This petition is filed by eight candidates, who contested the elections to various Gram Panchayats which were held on 9th June, 2000 and were declared elected on 10th June, 2000 by the respondent-Returning Officer, but subsequently, the results came to be modified and the respondent Nos. 5 to 13 were declared to be elected by the corrigendum issued on the same day. This relates to the elections of Gram Panchayat Barshitakli for Ward No. 2, Gram Panchayat Sukli, Tahsil Barshitakli from Ward No. 2, Gram Panchayat Dongargaon, Tahsil Akola, from Ward No. 3 Gram Panchayat Aalegaon, Tahsil Patur, from Ward No. 3, Gram Panchayat Sasti, Tahsil Patur from Ward No. 2, Gram Panchayat Hatgaon, Tahsil Murtizapur, from Ward No. 2, Gram Panchayat Jamathi Tahsil Murtizapur, from Ward No. 2, Gram Panchayat Chikhali, Tahsil Murtizapur, from Ward No. 1, which is impugned in this writ petition. Writ Petition No. 3045/2000 : This petition particularly questions the interpretation of Rule 34 (2) of the Rules of 1959, and that of section 10 (7) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Returning Officer ought to have declared the petitioner as elected from Ward No. 1 of Village Aalegaon, which is also a multimember constituency having three seats; two seats were for open and one seat was reserved. According to the petitioner, after Sau. Taibai Thote was declared as elected from reserved category, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for election in general category she having secured 120 votes, but the Returning Officer declared respondent No. 4 Moreshwar Pandurang Pawar as elected, who had scored 116 votes i. e. 4 votes less than the petitioner. This is contrary to Rule 34 of the Rules of 1959. A reliance has been place on the case of (Shobha Ashok Patil v. Mahananda Rajaram Nikam and others), 1997 (3) Maharashtra Law Journal 353. Insofar as this petition is concerned, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner, if aggrieved by the declaration of such result, could have very well filed Election Petition before the Civil Judge of competent jurisdcition, for determining the validity of the election as contemplated under section 59 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1959. We are informed that such petition is filed by other persons and is pending and, therefore, we do not think it proper to interfere in this matter in exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdcition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that the impugned action on the part of the Returning Officer to have issued corrigendum resulting in modification of the election results declared earlier, is without any jurisdiction vested in him under the law and, therefore, once Election Officer has declared the result, rightly or wrongly, he cannot have issued corrigendum pursuant to the directions of the State Election Commissioner, and by placing reliance on section 10 (7) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. It is submitted that after declaring the results of the elections by the Returning Officer, it is only the Collector who has powers under Rule 37 of the Rules of 1959, to correct, before the publication of the names of the elected and appointed members, any mistakes, if any, in the names of the elected and appointed members and but for this, the Returning Officer or the Collector have no powers to interfere with the results of elections once declared and the only remedy left with the person aggrieved by such declaration of the result, is to file an election petition as contemplated under section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.