DATTATRAYA NARHAR PITALE Vs. PRABHAKAR DINKAR GOKHALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant Dattatraya Narhar Pitale has filed this Revision Application against the order of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Amratio setting aside his election to Amraoti Municipal Council from Ward No.25. The Election to Amraoti Municipal Council were held in July, 1967 under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). There were several Wards within the limits of Amraoti Municipal Council and from Ward No.25, there were a candidates viz, the applicants opponent No.1 and opponent No.2. The applicant secured highest number of votes viz. 352 while opponent Nos.1 and 2. The Applicant secured highest number of votes viz., 352 while opponent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively secured 203 and 198 votes. As the applicant secured highest number of votes, he was declared elected.

(2.) On August 21, 1967 opponent No 2 filed an election petition under section 21 (1) of the Act Challenged was that as the Head-Mistress in Municipal Marathi Girls I.E.M School , Amraoti, that she was residing with the applicant in the same house and that accordingly the applicant was disqualified under Sec.16 (1) (i) of the Act. This election petition was heard before the learned Extra Assistant Judge. It was admitted on behalf of the applicant was residing with him and that she was was employed as the Head Mistress in the Municipal School. But on his behalf two contentions were raised before the learned Judge: firstly it was contended that having regard to the provisions of rule 15(1) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Election Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules) and Section 44 of the Act, it was not permissible to opponent No.2 challenge the validity of his election on the ground that the applicant was disqualified within the meaning of Section 16(1) (i) of the Act Both these contentions of the applicant were rejected by the learned Judge and by his Order dated July 21, 1963 set aside the election.

(3.) It may incidentally be observed that while these proceedings were pending one Suganchand Choudhari initiated proceedings before the Collector Amravati under Section 44 of the Act for declaring that by reason of the employment of the wife of the applicant he was disqualified within the meaning of Section 16(1) (i) of the Act, that he was disabled from continuing to be a Councillor and the Office ought to be declared vacant. In these proceedings the Collector decided against Suganchand Choudhari and took the view that the applicant incurred no disqualification within the meaning of Section 16(1) (i) of the Act.