Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.54 seconds)Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli ... vs R.D. Rohit, Autho. Officer And Co. ... on 27 April, 2005
6. However, learned AGP Mr.Venugopal Patel for the
Respondent No.3Election Officer submitted that
the Election Officer had to consider the
objections raised by the objector at the time of
scrutiny of the nomination forms and the
respondent no.5 objector having raised the
objection that the proposer had withdrawn his
proposal in support of the petitioner, the
Election Officer had rightly rejected the
nomination form of the petitioner. He submitted
that the Election Officer had verified about the
veracity of the application of the proposer and
put his endorsement on the application of such
withdrawal. According to him, the stages of
verification and examination of the nomination
forms by the election officer have been mentioned
in Rule 11 to 16 of the said Rules, and that he
had the powers to reject the nomination, if any
Page 4 of 12
HC-NIC Page 4 of 12 Created On Sun Aug 20 22:38:37 IST 2017
C/SCA/13372/2017 ORDER
of the grounds mentioned in Rule 16 existed.
Relying upon the decision of the Full Bench, in
case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd.
Vs. R.D. Ropahit, Authorised Officer and
Cooperative Officer (Marketing) reported in
2006GCD1211, he submitted that petitioner
having alternative remedy to approach the
Director under Rule 28 of the said Rules, this
Court may not exercise extraordinary
jurisdiction, more particularly when the
nomination form of the petitioner was not found
in accordance with the Rules. He also relied upon
other judgments of this Court to submit that once
the election process has started, the High Court
should not interfere with the same.
Kanjibhai Babaldas Patel vs Election Officer Of A.P.M.C., Visnagar on 10 March, 2000
10. From the bare reading of the said Rule, it is
explicitly clear that the Election Officer could
reject the nomination form of the candidate only
on two grounds mentioned therein namely, on the
ground that the proposer is a person whose name
is not in the relevant list of voters, or on the
ground that the nomination has not been made in
accordance with the rules. As held by this Court
in case of Kanjibhai B. Patel Vs. Election
Officer, reported in 2007 (1) GLR 259, the power
of rejection of a nomination has to be exercised
by the Election Officer within the defined and
earmarked domain, and that innovative and
ingenious exercise of power or interpretation of
Rule 16 is not permissible. As stated earlier, in
the instant case, the petitioner had submitted
the nomination form as prescribed under Rule 11
of the Rules with the signature of the proposer,
expressing his willingness to contest election.
It is also not disputed by the respondents that
the nomination form was in accordance with the
Rules when submitted. It is only after the
submission of the nomination form by the
petitioner and acceptance of the form by the
Election officer on 12.07.2017, the objection was
Page 8 of 12
HC-NIC Page 8 of 12 Created On Sun Aug 20 22:38:37 IST 2017
C/SCA/13372/2017 ORDER
raised by the objector on 13.07.2017 at the time
of scrutiny of the form that the proposer had
withdrawn his proposal. On such objection having
been raised, the nomination has been rejected by
the Respondent no.3. It is pertinent to note that
the respondent no.3 while rejecting the
nomination has failed to mention as to how the
case of the petitioner fell under any of the
grounds mentioned in Rule 16. The requirement of
the Rule 11 was that it had to be signed by the
person qualified to vote. There was no
requirement of any of the Rules that the proposer
should continue to support the candidate till the
election was held. In the opinion of the Court,
the Election officer therefore had no authority
to consider such application allegedly given by
the proposer withdrawing his proposal and reject
the nomination on such ground. Even if, the
proposer had subsequently withdrawn his proposal
after the submission of the nomination form, it
could not be said that the nomination of the
petitioner was not in accordance with the Rules,
more particularly when the proposer did not
dispute his signature on the nomination form.
Under the circumstances, the election officer had
clearly travelled beyond his authority and
jurisdiction by rejecting the nomination of the
petitioner on the extraneous consideration.
Election Commission Of India Through ... vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 30 August, 2000
11. It is true that ordinarily, the writ Court should
be loath to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction
Page 9 of 12
HC-NIC Page 9 of 12 Created On Sun Aug 20 22:38:37 IST 2017
C/SCA/13372/2017 ORDER
under Article 226 of the constitution of India in
an election matter, as submitted by the learned
AGP, however, it is equally true that when the
statutory authority like the Election Officer
tries to exercise powers which are nonexistent or
misconceived, such action must be brought under
the legal parameters of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution. A very pertinent
observations made by the Supreme Court in case of
Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and
Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216 may be
regurgitated. It is observed in Para No.28 as
under:
"28. Election disputes are not just
private civil disputes between two
parties. Though there is an individual
or a few individuals arrayed as parties
before the Court but the stakes of the
constituency as a whole are on trial.
Whichever way the lis terminates it
affects the fate of the constituency
and the citizens generally. A
conscientious approach with overriding
consideration for welfare of the
constituency and strengthening the
democracy is called for. Neither
turning a blind eye to the
controversies which have arisen nor
assuming a role of over enthusiastic
activist would do. The two extremes
Page 10 of 12
HC-NIC Page 10 of 12 Created On Sun Aug 20 22:38:37 IST 2017
C/SCA/13372/2017 ORDER
have to be avoided in dealing with
election disputes.
The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963
Rajendra Dalichand Koticha And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 8 May, 2007
5. Learned Advocate Mr.Nishit Gandhi for the
petitioner taking the Court to the various
provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce
Markets Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said
Act') & Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter
referred to as 'the said Rules') submitted that
as per Rule 11, the nomination paper in the
prescribed FormI had to be signed by the person
qualified to vote at the election and the
candidate had to sign a declaration expressing
his willingness to stand for the election. He
further submitted that the Election officer had
very limited scope of inquiry at the time of
scrutiny of the nomination forms, and could
reject the nomination form only on two grounds as
mentioned in Rule 16 of the said Rules, however,
in the instant case, the Election Officer had
travelled beyond his authority by rejecting the
nomination of the petitioner on the ground that
the proposer had withdrawn his proposal on
13.07.2017. Mr.Gandhi expressed his apprehension
that the proposer had not remained present before
the Election Officer but some other person
personifying himself as proposer had remained
present at the instance of the objector, and
relying upon such objection application of the
Page 3 of 12
HC-NIC Page 3 of 12 Created On Sun Aug 20 22:38:37 IST 2017
C/SCA/13372/2017 ORDER
Respondent No.5 objector, the Election Officer
had rejected the nomination form of the
petitioner. Mr.Gandhi has relied upon various
decisions of this Court to submit that except on
the grounds mentioned in Rule 16, the Election
Officer had no innovative or ingenious powers to
reject the nomination of the candidate. He also
relied upon the decision in case of Rajendra
Koticha Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2007
(2) GLR 1642, to submit that intervention of the
Court is necessary for the welfare of the
constituency.
1