Gujarat High Court
Robinson Chimanbhai Chauhan vs The Secretary on 11 July, 2018
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt, A.G.Uraizee
C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15912 of 2017
================================================================
ROBINSON CHIMANBHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
THE SECRETARY
================================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS P SATTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
MR NIRAJ ASHAR AGP for the Respondent
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 11/07/2018
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT)
1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner, who happened to be the applicant in Election Petition No.3 of 2017 before the Principal Civil Judge Bhiloda, has taken out this petition inter alia challenging the order dated 17th March, 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda dismissing the delay condonation application and the Election Petition, as it was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 31 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Panchayat Act' for the sake of brevity) and as there was no power conferred upon the concerned authority to condone any delay occurred in filing the same.
Page 1 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER3. Facts in brief, as could be gathered from the memo of petition, deserve to be set out as under for appreciating the controversy in question:
3.1 On 10.12.2016, the petitioner had filed the nomination in the election for the post of Sarpanch in Nana Kantharia Gram Panchayat, for which the petitioner and his panel were allotted the symbol of 'scissor'. There were two polling booths, wherein on 27.12.2016, the voting had taken place. As per Section 30 of the Panchayat Act, every candidate contesting elections for the post of Sarpanch must have a toilet as a mandatory requirement, however, few candidates despite not fulfilling the mandatory requirement filed a false affidavit stating the requirement of toilet is fulfilled. One candidate being Sarpanch Francisbhai Y. Patel had also made an application to the election officer on 10.12.2016 for cancelling the nomination of all the three candidates who had filed the false affidavits. On the date of the voting i.e. on 27.12.2016, at one of the polling booths one Mr. Ranjitsinh Kodarsingh Jadeja was appointed as Election Agent and was to take care of the ballot box, where the voting was taking place, the election agents were to be appointed from the office of the Midday Meal Department. The said person had already retired from the Midday Meal Department and the actual person who was allotted the post of polling agent was Mr. Pravinsinh Jadeja. The petitioner had made a call to the election officer at the very same moment and made a complaint, however the same was unheard and no actions were taken. The petitioner had also made the written application before the respondent authorities seeking the order for the employee to be posted as employment agent, but Page 2 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER no reply has been received till date.
3.2 The voting was held and in total 803 votes were put. On 29.12.2016, the counting had taken place by the Election Officer. The petitioner and his panel members were present at the time of counting. The officer had stated the numbers of the ballot papers and declared the result. The petitioner had strong apprehension that the original ballot papers have been replaced with the duplicate ballot papers.
3.3 On the next date, it came to know to the petitioner from some of the villagers that few ballot papers of the symbol of scissor were lying in garbage and after verifying the same it became clear to the petitioner that original ballot papers were burnt and were replaced with the duplicate ballot papers. Thereafter, petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent authorities. The Mamlatdar - Election Officer had accepted the letter and original ballot papers with assurance that appropriate decision will be taken. However, no action has been taken till date.
3.4 On 11.01.2017, the petitioner made a written application to the Taluka Development Officer and the District Collector Arvalli, seeking further update, however, the same was never responded. On 19.01.2017, the election officer passed the resolution for conducting the elections for the post of Deputy Sarpanch, despite there not being enough members of the Nana Kantharia Gram Panchayat, the election officer conducted the election and appointed the Deputy Sarpanch.
Against which the petitioner also made a representation to the respondent authorities, however, the same being unheard, no Page 3 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER reply was received and no actions were taken.
3.5 On the day of the election, the petitioner had made an application to the Presiding Officer that one officer on the polling booth was made sat despite not being appointed for the same and further the family members of the same person contesting the elections, however, the Presiding Officer refused to accept the application. The petitioner made an application before the office of the Election Commission on 30.12.2016, against the illegalities committed in the election along with the ballot papers destroyed by the officers of the polling booth, however, so far no reply has been given by the authorities.
3.6 The petitioner thereafter in the month of January, 2017 again made an application before the office of the Mamlatdar for vacating the post of the Deputy Sarpanch till the final disposal of the applications preferred by the petitioner. However, the office of the Mamlatdar, had not replied or even not taken any action. The petitioner again in the month of February, 2017 made a reminder application to the Gujarat State Election Commission seeking clarification upon the applications made by the petitioner. However, the Election Commission did not replied or even any action has not been taken.
3.7 Since 30.12.2016, no actions have been taken by the respondent authorities towards the applications made by the petitioner challenging the elections, the petitioner filed one Election Petition No.3 of 2017, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiloda along with the delay Page 4 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER application. The said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2017, passed below Exh.1, the application came to be dismissed on the ground that as per the provisions of the Panchayat Act, the elections can be challenged within 15 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election and once the 15 days time period has elapsed, there is no provision which specifies that if such application challenging the elections is filed after the completion of the period, the delay can be condoned and further which authority can condone the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court by way of filing this petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that delay occurred in laying the Election Petition needs to be viewed from the fact that the petitioner was legitimately expecting the authority to take action as gross and serious complaints were made against the very persons to all the authorities, as mentioned in the petition. The various representations and written submissions made to various authorities were unhidden and hence at last having received no reply from the concerned, petitioner was constrained to lay the Election Petition No.3 of 2017 as provided under Section 31 of the Panchayat Act. However, as the period of 15 days had gone by, the petitioner also put up an application for seeking condonation of delay, which according to the counsel for the petitioner ought to have been condoned in view of the fact that the petitioner cannot be attributed with any laxity whatsoever, which would militate against the prayer for seeking condonation of delay.
Page 5 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions;
1. in case of Shaik Saidulu Alias Saida Vs. Chukka Yesu Ratnam & Ors., reported in (2002) 3 SCC 130, para 8, 11 to 14.
2. in case of S.B.P. And Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Limited And Anr. reported in 2006 (1) G.L.H. 105, para 9 to 18 and 40 to 42.
3. in case of Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs. Lalit Narain Mishra, reported in 1974 (2) SCC 133: AIR 1974 SC 480, para 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 22 to 24.
4. in case of Mangu Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in 1976 (1) SCC 392: AIR 1976 SC 105, para 3, 5, 6 and 7.
5. in case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku, reported in 2005 (4) SCC 480, para 5 to 9, 17, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30 and 45.
6. in case of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited vs. Mahabir Sugar Mills Private Limited, reported in 1981 (4) SCC 158.
7. in case of N. Balaji Vs. Virendra Singh, reported in 2004 (8) SCC 312, para 9 to 12.
Page 6 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER8. in case of Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, reported in 1995 5 SCC 5, para 3, 7 to 19 and 22.
9. in case of Jayanta Samal Vs.Kulamani Behera, reported in 2004 (13) SCC 552, para 3, 6, 8, 10 and 12.
10. in case of Chandrakant Shukla Vs. Maharaja Martand Singh, reported in 1973 (3) SCC 194, para 4 to 6.
11. in case of Vajir Menaben Shankarbhai Vs. Election Commission, passed in S.C.A. No.13959 of 2007: Order dated 18.09.2007, para 5, 6 and 12.
12. in case of Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. Collector, Raipur, reported in 1980 (1) SCC 180, para 6 and 7.
13. in case of Rameshchandra Patel Vs. The Collector, Kheda, reported in 1979 (1) GLR 191, para 5 to 7.
14. in case of P. Philip Vs. Director of Enforcement New, reported in 1976 (2) SCC 174; AIR 1976 SC 1185.
15. in case of I.T.I. Limited Vs. Siemens Public Communications Network Limited, Page 7 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER reported in 2002 (5) SCC 510.
16. in case of Shah Gagmohandas Purshottamdas Vs. Jamnadas Vrajlal Gandhi, reported in 1965 (6) G.L.R. 49.
17. in case of S. Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) BY Lrs. Vs. Pramod Gupta (Dead) BY Lrs., reported in 2003 (3) SCC 272.
18. in case of T.A. Ahammed Kabeer Vs. A.A. Azeez, reported in 2003 AIR SC 2271.
19. in case of Arunbhai Maganbhai nayak Vs. Rameshbhai Nayak and Ors., reported in 2002 (3) GLR 2321.
20. in case of K. Venkatachalam Vs. A. Swamickan, reported in 1999 (4) SCC 526.
21. in case of Kapadwanj Nagarpalika Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, reported in 1986 GLH 1124.
6. Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned AGP, submitted that unfortunately there is no provision under which the limitation prescribed under Section 31 of the Panchayat Act is provided to be relaxed by way of delay condonation. In fact, there is a judgment of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.12641 of 2016 dated 07.03.2017, this Court in terms, on similar facts, has ruled that in case of provision of Section 14 Page 8 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity), there is no scope and provision for seeking condonation of delay by the adjudicating authority.
7. Learned AGP relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court submitted that Section 31 of the Panchayat Act, so far as limitation is concerned, could be said to be pari materia with Section 14 of the Act and therefore, on an analogous principle, the power to condone delay could be said to be non-existence and not available with the authority. Section 14 of the Act and Section 31 of the Panchayat Act, would clearly indicate that the authority entrusted with the task of deciding and adjudicating the election, dispute is not the court, and on that basis the provision of Limitation Act is said to be not applicable on its own strength. The said provision of the Municipalities Act and Panchayat Act has not provided for any explicit power in the designated authority to condone delay and in absence thereof by virtue of provision of Limitation Act, which would otherwise applicable, would have no applicability in view of Section 31 as well as in view of the decision of this Court which is rendered after extensively dealing with the submission qua non applicability of the Limitation Act while examining the application under Section 14 of the Municipalities Act.
8. Learned AGP also relies upon the decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.723 of 2017 with Special Civil Application No.1507 of 2017, submitted that the Civil Judge entrusted with the task of deciding the lis in election matters is not a Court and is Page 9 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER "persona designata".
9. Learned AGP also relied upon the decision in case of Shaik Saidulu Alias Saida Vs. Chukka Yesu Ratnam And Others, reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 130 and in case of Jayminbhai Navinbhai Doshi & Ors Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2015 (1) G.L.H. (F.B.) 167.
10. The Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the papers on record. First of all, the controversy revolves around the provisions of Section 31 of the Panchayat Act and hence, the same deserves to be set out as under:
"Section 31: Determination validity of election, inquiry by Judge and procedure -
(1) If the validity of any election of a member of a panchayat is brought in question by any person contesting the election or by any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question relates, such person may, at any time within fifteen days after the date of the declaration of the results of the election, present an election petition to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), and if there be no Civil Judge (Junior Division) then to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), (hereinafter referred to as "the Judge") having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should have been held, for the determination of such question.Page 10 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER
(2) A petitioner shall not join as respondents to his election petition persons except those mentioned in the following clauses, namely :-
(a) where the petitioner in addition to challenging the validity of the election of all or any of the returned candidates, claims a further relief that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner and where no such further relief is claimed, all the returned candidates, and
(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the election petition.
(3) An inquiry shall thereupon be held by the Judge and he may after such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass an order, confirming or amending the declared result, or setting the election aside. For the purposes of the said inquiry, the said Judge may exercise all the powers of a civil court, and his decision shall be conclusive.
(4) If the validity of the election is brought in question only on the ground of any error by the officer or officers charged with carrying out the rules made under section 274 or of an Page 11 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER irregularity or informality not corruptly caused, the Judge shall not set aside the election.
Explanation :-- The expression "error4 in this sub-section does not include any breach of or any omission to carry out or any non-
compliance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder whereby the result of the election has been materially affected.
(5) All election petitions received under sub- section (1)--
(a) in which the validity of the election of members to represent the same electoral division is in question, shall be heard by the same Judge, and
(b) in which the validity of the election of the same member elected to represent the same electoral division is in question, shall be heard together.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Judge shall not permit--
(a) any petition to be compromised or withdrawn, or
(b) any person to alter or amend any Page 12 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER pleading, unless he is satisfied that such application for compromise or withdrawal or the application for such alteration or amendment is bona fide and not collusive.
(7) (a) If on the holding of such inquiry the Judge finds that a candidate has for the purpose of the election committed a corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-section (8) he shall declare the candidate disqualified for the purpose of that election and of such fresh election as may be held under section 33 and shall set aside the election of such candidate if he has been elected.
(b) If, in any case to which clause (a) does not apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more candidates, the Judge shall after a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of each candidate, declare the candidate who is found to have the greatest number of valid votes in his favour to have been duly elected:
Provided that for the purpose of such computation, no vote shall be reckoned as valid if the Judge finds that any corrupt practice was committed by any person known Page 13 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER or unknown, in giving or obtaining it :
Provided further that after such computation if any equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates and the addition of one vote will entitle any of the candidates to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be added to the total number of valid votes found to have been received in favour of such candidate or candidates, as the case may be, selected by lot drawn in the presence of the Judge in such manner as he may determine.
(8) A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice-
(a) who, with a view to inducing any voter to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, offers or gives any money or valuable consideration, or holds out any promise of individual profit, or holds out any threat of injury to any person, or
(b) who, with a view to inducing any person to stand or not to stand or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, offers or gives any money or valuable consideration or holds out any promise of individual profit or holds out any threat of injury to any person, or Page 14 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER
(c) who hires or procures whether on payment or otherwise, any vehicle or vessel for the conveyance of any voter (other than the person himself, the members of his family or his agent) to and from any polling station :
Provided that the hiring of a vehicle or vessel by a voter or by several voters at their joint cost for the purpose of conveying him or them to or from any such polling station shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause if the vehicle or vessel so hired is a vehicle or vessel not propelled by mechanical power :
Provided further that the use of any public transport vehicle or vessel or any tram car or railway carriage by any voter at his own cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling station shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause.
Explanation-- 1. A corrupt practice shall be deemed to have been committed by a candidate, if it has been committed with his knowledge and consent, or by a person who is acting under the general or special authority of such candidate with reference to the election.
Explanation.--- 2. ''promise of individual profit" does not include a promise to vote for or against any particular measure which may come before a panchayat for consideration, Page 15 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER but subject thereto, includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself or any person in whom he is interested.
Explanation-- 3. The expression "vehicle" means any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise, and whether used for drawing other vehicles otherwise."
Thus, the bare reading with said provisions would unequivocally indicate that the same does not contain any provision of condoning the delay.
11. The learned AGP has unequivocally submitted that the provisions of Section 31 is in pari-materia of Section 14 of the Municipalities Act, which would indicate that the authority entrusted to decide election dispute is not a Court and on that basis, the provisions of Limitation Act is not applicable. Following decisions have been relied upon by learned AGP in support of his submission that neither Section 31 of the Panchayat Act nor Section 14 of the Municipalities Act provide for any power in the authority to condone the delay, if the applicant has approached the Court after the time limit for adjudication of election dispute.
(i) decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 12641 of 2016;
(ii) decision reported in (2002) 3 SCC 130;
(iii) decision reported in 2015(1) GLH (FB) 167;
Page 16 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER12. On close perusal of the citations cited at bar by the counsels appearing for both the sides, one can say that the delay if not provided to be condoned under the statute and statute provide for limitation, the authority entrusted with the power to adjudicate cannot be arrogant the power to condone the delay, therefore, the delay condonation cannot be attempted by the authority.
13. There could be a submission that delay condonation, if not provided, the provisions for approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as in a given case, is always available but in the instant case, the same also would not be available, as the petitioner has approached this Court, may be on a glaring facts, but after having availed the remedy, which was time barred to him. The petitioner has styled the entire petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and tenor of the prayers and the petition, would dissuade this Court for entertaining the petition as the petition is admittedly filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court hastened to add here that in a given case on a glaring facts even a time barred matter, High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is never clipped or confined in a narrow precinct of principles that High Court power would be available to cure such defects in the interest of justice but in the instant case, dispute is that of election and petitioner has many remedies including the remedy of filing appropriate proceedings of co-warranto, even if the candidates whose candidature was challenged is not eligible to contest the election. The person, who has challenged the election, admittedly challenged the order of the Court on the petition Page 17 of 18 C/SCA/15912/2017 ORDER filed under Section 31 of the Act, therefore, is not competent and is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
14. In the result, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J) (A.G.URAIZEE, J) P.S. JOSHI/pankaj Page 18 of 18