VIJAYKUMAR MANIKLAL BANG Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Additional District Judge, pusad, whereby the Additional District Judge allowed an appeal filed by one Sandeep Laxmanrao banginwar, respondent No. 18 herein, and directed that the nomination form of the petitioner should be rejected. Following facts will highlight the grievance of the petitioner.

(2.) ELECTIONS of the Wards of Digras Municipal council were declared and in pursuance thereof the petitioner filled up a nomination form from Ward no. 16 for being elected as a ward member. On the date of scrutiny, i. e. , on 14-11-1996, respondent no. 18 Sandeep Laxmanrao Banginwar filed an objection contending that the petitioner was a defaulter and had not paid the octroi taxes on the cars bearing Registration Nos. MH 29 B 1575 and mhx 4755. It was contended in the objection that the petitioner was, thus, a defaulter and had disqualified himself from contesting the election for the ward member. The Returning Officer, on this objection, called for a report from the respondent No. 3/municipal Council and was informed by the Municipal Council that the octroi tax was already paid. The objection raised by the respondent No. 18 was overruled by the Returning officer and the nomination form of the petitioner was accepted. This acceptance caused respondent no. 18 to file an appeal, which was registered as election Appeal No. 5/96 before the Additional district Judge, Pusad. The necessary formalities were completed and the Additional District Judge, pusad, who decided the appeal, allowed the same, necessitating the present petition.

(3.) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the order of the Additional District Judge is wholly incorrect on merits as under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Act for the sake of brevity), it was necessary that the bill of the sum due from him should have been presented on him under clause (h) of section 16 (1) of the Act and admittedly, in the absence of any bill, the petitioner could not have been declared to be a defaulter and thereby could not have been prevented from contesting the election. The petitioner has supported his contentions with number of documents suggesting that, firstly, the said octroi tax was not due and, secondly, no bill was ever presented to him and, therefore, there was no question of default to make the payment of the bill.