GOPIKISHAN AGARWAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, BHANDARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of an election held on May 30, 1962. The petition is made by the candidate who was elected at the election as a councilor from the Risama constituency of Amgaon block for the Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. After the results were declared on June 1, 1962, respondent No. 2 Chandrakumar filed an election petition under section 27 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1986, before the District Judge, Bhandara. The grounds on which the election was sought to be set aside as against the petitioner were (i) that the petitioner had committed a corrupt practice during the election and (ii) that the petitioner was disqualified from standing as a candidate in view of the fact that he had an interest in the contract with the Janapada Sabha and had thus incurred a disqualification within the meaning of section 16(1)(i) of the Zilla Parishads Act.

(2.) THE Election Tribunal (i.e. the District Judge, Bhandara) held that there was no evidence regarding the commission of corrupt practice by the petitioner, but the Tribunal held that the petitioner had an interest in the contracts which were executed by one Lakhanlal and another Hansraj with the Janapada Sabha, Gondia, and that these contracts subsisted on the date of the submission of the nomination paper by the petitioner. On the ground of this disqualification, the election of the petitioner was set aside.

(3.) UNDER section 14 (2) of the Zilla Parishads Act, the State Government has been given the power to make rules for providing fur an appeal against the. decision of the Returning Officer accepting or rejecting the nomination paper and also further to provide for the decision in appeal being final and not capable of being challenged subsequently. In pursuance of this power to make the rules, the State Government has framed rules, the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Election Rules, 1962. Sub -rule (1) of rule 20 of those rules provides for an appeal. Sub -rule (8) provides that the decision of the District Judge on appeal under this rule and, subject only to such decision the decision of the Returning Officer accepting or rejecting the nomination of a candidate shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called in question in any Court or before a Judge referred to in sub -section (2) of section 27. In view of these statutory provisions of the sections and the rules made thereunder, the Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction in proceeding to inquire into the alleged disqualification of the petitioner and thereafter in setting aside the election on that ground. The petitioner also challenged on merits the decision of the Tribunal but we are not concerned with those details for the disposal of this special civil application. The petitioner therefore prayed that since the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to set aside his election on the ground on which it has been set aside, we should issue a writ quashing the order passed by the Tribunal.