Bombay High Court
Atul Anandrao Jagtap vs The Chief Election Commissioner, ... on 27 March, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp4332.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4332/2016
Atul Anandrao Jagtap,
aged 36 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o 47, Shivaji Nagar, Shivaji
Garden, Yavatmal. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. The Chief Election Commissioner,
Nirwachan Sadan, Ashok Marg,
New Delhi.
2. The Principal Secretary,
State Election Commission,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
3. Shri Sandeep S/o Ramchandra Bajoria,
aged 41 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o Darda Nagar, Darwha Road,
Yavatmal. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Neerja G. Chaubey, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri Pravin P. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATE : 27.3.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Neerja
G. Chaubey, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri Pravin P.
Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
2 wp4332.16
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner, claiming to be voter of the constituency from which
the respondent No.3 got elected as member of Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly in 2014, filed a complaint against the respondent No.3 alleging that
the respondent No.3 had not submitted the account of election expenses within
stipulated time. As the Election Commission of India had not taken any
cognizance of the complaint, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition
No.4130/2015 before this Court. After that, Election Commission of India had
passed the impugned order and disposed the complaint. As the complaint filed
by the petitioner came to be disposed by the Election Commission of India, Writ
Petition No.4130/2015 is also disposed.
Now the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Election
Commission of India on 4th April, 2016 concluding that the report given by the
District Election Officer shows that the respondent No.3 had given the account
of election expenses and no irregularities were found in it. The grievance of
the petitioner is that he is not granted hearing by the Election Commission of
India before passing the impugned order.
The learned Advocates for the respondents have not been able to
point out that the petitioner was given notice and granted hearing before the
impugned order is passed. As the impugned order is passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice, it is unsustainable.
3 wp4332.16
Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) The matter is remitted to the Election Commission of India for
deciding the complaint of the petitioner afresh after granting hearing to the
petitioner as well as the respondent No.3.
(iii) The petitioner and the respondent No.3 shall appear before the
Election Commission of India on 12th June, 2017 at 11 a.m. and abide by
further orders / instructions in the matter.
(iv) The complaint filed by the petitioner shall be decided till 29 th
September, 2017.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
