Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar Rambhau Barabudhe vs Returning Officer/Dy.Collector ... on 2 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR1998BOM221, 1998(4)BOMCR578, 1998(1)MHLJ718, AIR 1998 BOMBAY 221, (1998) 1 MAH LJ 718, (1998) 2 ALLMR 102 (BOM), (1998) 4 BOM CR 578, 1998 (2) BOM LR 36, 1998 BOM LR 2 36
Author: S.B. Mhase
Bench: S.B. Mhase
ORDER S.B. Mhase, J.
1. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision given by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, on 30th December, 1997, in Election Petition No. 9 of 1997, wherein the election of the respondent No. 3 to the post of Councillor of the Amravati Municipal Corporation has been set aside and the respondent No. 2 has been declared elected in his place being the second candidate securing the highest valid votes in the said election.
3. The petitioner before this Court is original respondent No. 8, who had contested the election for the said post of Councillor from Ward No. 38 of the Amravati Municipal Corporation.
4. The general election of the Municipal Corporation, Amravati was held on 23rd February, 1997. The petitioner and the respondents Nos. 2 to 14 had contested the said election from Ward No. 38, which was reserved for the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Class In the said election, the respondent No. 2 obtained 517 votes; as against that, the respondent No. 3 obtained 558 votes. The petitioner obtained 480 votes. The respondent No. 13 obtained 473 votes; while the respondent No. 8 obtained 286. Votes. The rest of the respondents obtained the votes less then this. However, the said election was contested by the petitioner and the respondents. Nos. 2 to 14. As the Returning Officer, the respondent No. 1, found that the respondent No. 3 had obtained 558 votes, which are highest than the rest of the candidates, the respondent No. 3 was declared elected. However, the respondent No. 2 had secured the second highest votes, namely, 517 votes and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 challenged the election of the respondent No. 3 by filling an election petition referred to above, wherein the respondent No. 2 prayed that the election of the respondent No. 3 be declared null and void and set it aside and the respondent No. 2 be declared elected in place respondent No. 3.
5. In the said election petition, the petitioner was the respondent No. 8 who also supported the respondent No. 2 so far as the setting aside the election of the respondent No. 3 is concerned, but opposed the respondent No. 2 herein, the original petitioner in an election petition, so far as the grant of declaration that the respondent No. 2 be declared elected in place of the respondent No. 3. As stated earlier, the election petition was decided by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, wherein the election of the respondent No. 3 from ward No. 38 of the Municipal Corporation, Amravati, was set aside on the ground that the respondent No. contest the election from Ward No. 38, which was reserved for the Other Backward Class. It was further declared that the respondent No. 2 is elected from Ward No. 38 in place of the respondent No. 3.
6. The respondent No. 3 has not challenged the declaration setting aside his election and, therefore, that part of the judgment and order of the trial Court stands confirmed and this position was accepted by all the Counsel appearing for the parties.
7. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition challenging the declaration granted in favour of the respondent No. 2 that the respondent No. 2 is elected from Ward No. 38 of the Municipal Corporation, Amravati in place of the respondent No. 3.
8. The only challenge raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Kaptan, is to the effect that such a declaration cannot be granted in favour of the respondent No. 2, being the candidate securing the next highest votes in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda v. Vishwanath Reddy, 1969(2) S.C.R. 90, D.K. Sharma v. Ram Sharan Yadav, and Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. Balasaheb Vikhe Patil, . The learned Counsel further submitted that the reasons assigned by the trial Court for granting such a declaration in favour of the respondent No. 2 are not legal and proper and if accepted, the declaration will have to be granted in respect of each and every case, wherein the election has been set aside.
9. Shri Puranik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent did not seriously dispute the position as laid down by the Apex Court and submitted that the case is covered by those judgments.
10. Therefore the only question requires scrutiny by this Court is as to whether the declaration granted in favour of the respondent No. 2 that the respondent No. 2 is elected in place of the respondent No. 3, is proper and legal. The ground on which the declaration has been given by the trial Court, in spite of the opposition by the present petitioner, is that, "if the fresh election is directed, it will result in incurring monetary expenses for no cause or reason on the part of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 and public at large. The respondent No. 3 has secured votes second in rank. If he is declared as an elected candidate from Ward No. 38 Municipal Corporation, Amravati, it will avoid unnecessary expenses likely to be incurred by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner and the public at large. It will cause no injustice or hardship to anybody. Therefore, I am inclined to declare the petitioner as elected candidate from Ward No. 38 of Municipal Corporation Amravati."
11. Thus the only reason, which weighed with the trial Judge, is the election expenses of the parties and the Municipal Corporation. It needs no reference or any precedent to state that the reasons given by the trial Court are bad in law. The expenses involved in the election process cannot be a ground for avoiding the elections, if they are necessitated in the facts and circumstances of the case In democracy, it is the voters' popular will, which shall reflect in the body constituted in accordance with law, wherein the elections have been provided for. And it is further well settled principle that the Court shall not substitute any candidate being declared as against the popular will of the voters at large. It is always better for the Court to leave this question open to the voters and therefore, while granting such a declaration, the Court should be cautious and shall not grant such a declaration unless the Court is satisfied that but for the disqualification and /or the corrupt practice, the candidate to be declared as elected would have obtained the majority of the valid votes. The Apex Court in the matter of Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda v. Vishwanath Reddy, 1969(2) S.C.R. 90 has, observed," We are again unable to see any logic in the assumption that votes cast in favour of a person who is regarded by the Returning Officer as validly nominated but who is in truth disqualified, could still be treated as valid votes, for the purposes of determining whether a fresh election should be held. When there are only two contesting candidates, and one of them is under a statutory disqualification, votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidate may be regarded as thrown away, irrespective of whether the voters who voted for him were aware of the disqualification. This is not to say that where there are more than two_candidates in the field for a single seat, and one alone is disqualified, on proof of disqualification all the votes cast in his favour will be discarded and the candidate securing the next highest number of votes will be declared elected. In such a case, question of notice to the voters may assume significance, for the voters may not, if aware of the disqualification have voted for the disqualified candidate." Thus, as a result of these observations of the Apex Court, in case there are more candidates than two, the question of notice to the voters of the disqualification becomes significant for the purpose of granting the declaration. Taking the clue from these observations, probably, in the matter of D.K. Sharma v. Ram Sharan Yadav, the second highest candidate D.K. Sharma had canvassed that no vote should be cast in favour of Ram Sharan Yadav who had been disqualified for having committed corrupt practice and any vote cast in his favour shall be thrown away. Appreciating the evidence led in that case, the Patna High Court has observed, which reasons have been approved by the Apex Court in the said judgment, to the effect, "The voters in this country have become very conscious even though a large number of them might be illiterate. They have not only started taking great interest in the election but exercise their franchise after knowing everything about contesting candidates and their franchise parties. It is, therefore, not possible to hold on the basis of the oral evidence that 46027 voters who cast their votes in favour of respondent No. 1 did so after having noticed about disqualification of respondent No. 1 and knowing that their votes shall be wasted. It follows, therefore, that the second prayer of the petitioner to declare him as duly elected after throwing away the votes of respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed." The observations, which were made by the Apex Court in Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda's case, referred to above, have been also approved and followed by the Apex Court in the matter of Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. Balasaheb Vikhe Patil, . After quoting the above-referred paragraph from the Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda's case, referred to above, the Apex Court has observed, "The law applicable being as above, the mere fact that Vikhe Patil secured the next highest number of votes after Gadakh is not sufficient to declare him elected on the conclusion that Gadakh's election is void for commission of a corrupt practice."
12. Thus, the law laid down by the Apex Court is to the effect that in case of thrown away votes, if there are more candidates than two, then, in that circumstances, the evidences in respect of notice to the voters in respect of the disqualification is significant. In this respect, a reference may be made to the case of Re. Bristol South East Parliamentary Election, (1961)3 All E.R. 354, wherein the evidence was led that a contesting candidate had sent out notices to all the persons entitled to vote stating that by reason of his status as a peer of the United Kingdom Wedgwood Benn was disqualified from being elected a member of Parliament and that all votes given for him would be thrown away and be null and void. Similar notices were published in the newspapers circulating in the constituency and were pasted at the entrance to polling stations. On such evidence, the Court of Queen's Bench held that the disqualification of Wedgwood Benn was known to the electorates before they cast their votes. This will point out the nature of duty, which the contesting candidate has to discharge so as to obtain a declaration of his being elected from the Court in case of his defeat in the election wherein the returned candidate was disqualified.
13. It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely no evidence led by the present respondent No. 2 before the trial Court that the voters were given a notice of disqualification of the respondent No. 3. Though, it is his case that at the time of scrutiny, he raised an oral objection to the nomination paper of the respondent No. 3, the said objection was rejected by the Returning Officer and the respondent No. 3 was allowed to contest the election. He has not taken further steps while in election campaign to educate and/or to bring to the notice of the voters that the respondent No. 3 is disqualified to contest the said election being not belonging to the Other Backward Class and those votes would be thrown away being void. In the absence of such evidence, the trial Court has granted a declaration on the ground that there will be unnecessary election expenses. The said ground is not legal and good ground for granting such a declaration, because whenever the election has been set aside and the fresh elections are directed, the expenditure for the said fresh elections is a must and, therefore, in order to avoid that expenditure, the declaration in respect of the second highest candidate cannot be granted. Neither the respondent No. 2 has led evidence in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to above so as to obtain a declaration of being elected in his favour, nor the law laid down by the Apex Court was relied on by the parties before the trial Court and nor the trial Court was bothered to look into it and granted a declaration of being elected in favour of the respondent No. 2, which, in the facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court, is bad in law.
14. It is to be noted that the respondent No. 3 has obtained 558 votes, which are highest in number; as against that, the respondent No. 2 has obtained 517 votes. The present petitioner has obtained 418 votes and the respondent No. 13 has obtained 473 votes and the others have obtained 286, 125, 102 etc. votes. The total votes, which have been cast, are 2,797/-. Out of that, 30 votes were found invalid and the valid votes were found to be 2,767/-. These figures will point out that none of the candidates have obtained the majority of the valid votes. Therefore, as the election of the respondent No. 3 has been declared void, the 558 votes obtained by him are the thrown away votes. However, even though the thrown away votes are ignored, none of the candidates have obtained the majority of the valid votes. The Court was bound to consider that had the respondent No. 3 being not the candidate, whether the votes cast in favour of the respondent No. 3 would have been given by the voters to the respondent No. 2, because it is certain that the voters, who have given the votes in favour of the respondent No. 3, have not chosen the respondent No. 2 as their candidate. In that eventuality, whether those votes would have gone in favour of the respondent No. 2 and/or whether those voters would have selected any other candidate from the respondent No. 4 to 15, was the question, which would have been considered by the trial Court. The trial Court did not consider the matter from this perspective and has granted a declaration in favour of the respondent No. 2 on a flimsy ground of expenditure being avoided. The said ground is against the democratic principles. In view of this, I find that the declaration granted in favour of the respondent No. 2 being elected in place of the respondent No. 3 from Ward No. 38 of the Amravati Municipal Corporation, is bad and illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
15. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The declaration granted in favour of the respondent No. 2 being elected in place of the respondent No. 3 from Ward No. 38 of the Amravati Municipal Corporation, is hereby quashed and set aside. The Returning Officer, the respondent No. 1, is hereby directed to hold the fresh elections of Ward No 38 of the Amravati Municipal Corporation, to elect the Councillor. The said elections shall be completed on or before 31st May, 1998.
16. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Parties to bear their own costs.
17. Petition allowed.