ANNASAHEB SAKHARAM RAJAMANE Vs. T K KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was one of the candidates from Ward No. 27 Vakharbhag, Sangli, for the municipal elections to be held on May 10, 1967. The petitioner was the owner of the immovable properties situated in the Municipal area and bearing city survey Nos. 95 - A and 253. For the period ending with March 31, 1968, i. e. , for the year 1967 - 68, having regard to the assessment levied and fixed in respect of the above two immovable properties, the petitioner was liable to pay respectively as tax the sum of Rs. 801. 75 and Rupees 226. 40. The petitioner filed nomination for his candidature prior to May 10, 1967. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed for May 13, 1967. On May 8, 1967 the petitioner was served with a bill dated April 27, 1967 bearing No. 12141 in respect of the immovable property bearing City Survey No. 95 - A for the tax of Rs. 801. 75 for 1967 - 68. On May 10, 1967 the petitioner was served with bill dated April 28, 1967 bearing No. 12294 in respect of the property bearing City Survey No. 253 for Rupees 226. 40 for 1967 - 68. At the time of the scrutiny of the petitioner's nomination paper on behalf of the other contesting candidates it was contended that the petitioner was disqualified from becoming a candidate and/or a councilor at the above election on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of the above two sums due by him to the council after the presentation of the above two bills on him under Section 150 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. The Returning Officer accepted the above contention and rejected the petitioner's nomination paper by his order dated May 13, 1967. The above order of the Returning Officer was challenged before the learned District Judge, who by his appellate Judgment and impugned order dated May 29, 1967 rejected the petitioner's appeal.

(2.) MR. Patankar for the petitioner has relied on the provisions in Sections 16 (1) (h), 150, 151, 169, 170 and 327 of the above Act and contended that the above decisions of the Returning Officer as well as the learned District Judge are unwarranted in law. His submission was that in connection with the above dues in respect of the taxes on the above properties default of payment had not been completed by the petitioner for the period of 15 days mentioned in the bills. In that connection he relied on the language used in Sections 150 and 151 and provisions in Sections 167 and 170 where a period of 15 days is mentioned. The substance of his submission was that simple arrears of payment of taxes could never be default in payment, since the bills mentioned a period of 15 days for payment of the dues mentioned in the bills. There was neither default nor arrears in that connection. The reasoning in the decisions of the Returning Officer and the learned District Judge are contrary to the above provisions of law and liable to be set aside.

(3.) MR. S. N. Naik for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 as well as Mr. Joshi and Mr. B. N. Naik for respondent Nos. 2 and 5 have strenuously submitted that on a true construction of the provisions in Section 16 (1) (h), the disqualification in respect of a candidate at the election arises immediately upon presentation on him of the bill for the taxes due. The disqualification and the arrears mentioned in that section has no relevance to the period of time mentioned in Sections 150, 151 and the provisions in Section 169 and 170.