ASHALATA SADASHIV MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri N. H. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. D. Sapkal, learned A. G. P. , for the State.

(2.) PETITIONER wanted to contest the election of the President of the Municipal Council, Erandol which took place on 11-12-1997. The office of the President was reserved for Other Backward Class woman. The petitioner, though allegedly belonging to the Other Back Ward Class, was elected from a seat reserved for woman general. On that count, her nomination paper was rejected. Petitioner did not file an appeal as was contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 51 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 nor she presented any dispute before the State Government under sub-section (5) of section 51 of the said Act.

(3.) SHRI Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the provision of appeal made in sub-section (3-A) of section 51 is redundent inasmuch as it is not possible for anybody to avail this facility. Normally, the election programme for the elections of the President of Municipal Council is a process which is completed in a single day. Nominations are to be filed in about two hours duration and immediately thereafter following scrutiny, elections take place. Therefore, though sub-section (3-A) provides a remedy of appeal against acceptance or rejection of nomination paper to the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, it is difficult, though not impossible, to avail this remedy. The Divisional Commissioners have been entrusted with the duties of the Regional Director of Municipal Administration. A person wishing to challenge the rejection or acceptance of a nomination paper in an election which is taking place at a remote taluka place far away from the divisional headquarters; would not be able to file an appeal before the Commissioner and get it decided by him after adopting due procedure before completion of the election. Though sub-section (3-A) provides that an appeal will have to be filed within 48 hours, the provision does not specify the time within which the appeal is to be decided by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration. Section 51 also does not indicate that there shall be left enough time between filing of the nomination, its scrutiny and the actual voting so that an appeal could be filed and decided within that time. Therefore, none can avail the remedy provided under sub-section (3-A) of section 51.