Bombay High Court
Suresh Nagnath Adsul vs Talathi, Village Shelagaon (R) ... on 7 January, 2021
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar
Nitin 1 / 6 13-WP-3673-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3673 OF 2020
Suresh Nagnath Adsul ... Petitioner
Versus
Talathi, Village Shelgaon (R),
Tal. Barshi, Dist. Solapur and others ... Respondents
Mr. A.B. Tajane for the Petitioner.
Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State.
Mr. S.B. Shetye alongwith Mr. Irfan Shaikh, Ms. Sarika Shetye for State Election
Commission.
Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. GP alongwith Ms. K.N. Solunke, AGP for the State.
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, &
VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 12th JANUARY, 2021.
P.C. :
1. By the above Writ Petition, the Petitioner - Suresh Nagnath Adsul seeks
to challenge the fnal voters list published on 14 th December, 2020, by the District
Collector, Solapur in respect of village Shelgaon (R), Taluka - Barshi, District Solapur,
whose Gram Panchyat election is scheduled in the three days from today i.e. on 15 th
January, 2021.
2. The reliefs sought in the above Writ Petition are as follows :
"(a) Rule be issued and record and proceedings of the case be called for
and after examining, the legality, validity and propriety of the fnal
voters list published by on 14th December, 2020 by the learned District
Collector Solapur being a Exhibit-F to the present Writ Petition be
Nitin 2 / 6 13-WP-3673-2020.doc
quashed and set aside so far as the objection in respect of 59 voters from
Prabhag No. 2 are concerned.
(b) The learned District Collector, Solapur be directed to correct the
voters list of Prabhag 2 of village Shelagaon (R), Taluka - Barshi,
District Solapur as per the objection of the Petitioner dated 7 th December,
2020 by Spot Inspection (Sthal Pahani) and correct the same."
3. The facts which are relevant for deciding the reliefs sought in the above
Writ Petition, are in brief set out hereunder :
3.1. On 20th November, 2020 the State Election Commission published the
election programme.
3.2 The draft voters list in respect of the Prabhag 2 of Village Shelgaon (R)
was published on 1st December, 2020. Objections were called for between 1 st
December, 2020 to 7th December, 2020.
3.3 On 5th December, 2020, the draft voters list was also published in the
newspapers and objections were called for.
3.4 On 7th December, 2020, the Petitioner fled his objections to the voters
list. The said objections are annexed and marked Exhibit 'D' to the above Writ
Petition.
3.5 On 11th December, 2020, the election programme was declared.
3.6 On 14th December, 2020 the State Election Commission - Respondent
No.8 rejected the objections of the Petitioner and published the fnal voters list.
Nitin 3 / 6 13-WP-3673-2020.doc
3.7 It is submitted that the names of the several voters are wrongly included
in the Prabhag 2 and therefore, the formation of Prabhags/Wards is wrong.
3.8 Being aggrieved by the fnal voters list, the Petitioner has fled the above
Writ Petition on 16th December, 2020.
4. Clause 1 of Article 243K of the Constitution of India pertains to Election
to the Panchayats and provides that, "the superintendence, direction and control of
the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the
Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commissioner consisting of a State
Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor." (emphasis supplied)
5. Article 243-O bars interference by courts in electoral matters. The same
is reproduced hereunder :
"Article 243-O - Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. -
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution -
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or
purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question
in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by
an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is
provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State."
(emphasis supplied)
6. The Apex Court in the case of Anugrah Narain Singh & Anr. V. State
Nitin 4 / 6 13-WP-3673-2020.doc
of U.P. & Ors.1 whilst dealing with the challenge to reservation of seats in favour of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes in the municipal election
has inter alia held that if holding of elections is allowed to be stalled on the complaint
of a few individuals, then grave injustice will be done to crores of other voters who
have a right to elect their representative to the local bodies. The relevant clauses of
the Judgment are reproduced hereunder :
"14........Importance of holding elections at regular intervals
for panchayats, municipal bodies or legislatures cannot be
overemphasised. If holding of elections is allowed to be stalled on
the complaint of a few individuals, then grave injustice will be
done to crores of other voters who have right to elect their
representatives to the local bodies. As a result of the order of the
High Court, elections that were going to be held to the local
bodies after a long lapse of nearly ten years were postponed
indefnitely. It was pointed out by this Court in the case of
Lakshmi Charan Sen V. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman 2, that :
(SCC p. 703, para 21)
"the fact that certain claims and objections are not fnally
disposed of, even assuming that they are fled in accordance with
law, cannot arrest the process of election to the legislature. The
election has to be held on the basis of the electoral roll which is in
force on the last date for making nominations".
15. The Court also quoted from its order dated 30-3-1982 that :
(SCC pp. 219-20, para 1)
1 (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 303
2(1985) 4 SCC 689
Nitin 5 / 6 13-WP-3673-2020.doc
"no High Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution should pass any orders, interim or otherwise,
which has the tendency or efect of postponing an election, which
is reasonably imminent and in relation to which its writ
jurisdiction is invoked. The imminence of the electoral process is
a factor which must guide and govern the passing of orders in the
exercise of the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The more
imminent such process, the greater ought to be the reluctance of
the High Court to do anything, or direct anything to be done,
which will postpone that process indefnitely by creating a
situation in which, the Government of a State cannot be carried
on in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution. ....................The High Courts must observe a self
imposed limitations on their power to act under Article 226, by
refusing to pass orders or give directions which will inevitably
result in an indefnite postponement of elections to legislative
bodies, which are the very essence of the democratic foundation
and functioning of our Constitution."
16. In this case, the High Court has ignored the fact that the
electoral process was well under way and was scheduled to be
completed in less than ten days' time. The High Court also failed
to observe the self-imposed limitation as enjoined by this Court
in the case of Laxmi Charan Sen."
In the instant case, admittedly on 1st December, 2020, draft voters list was published
by the State Election Commission and the objections were invited. The Petitioner
submitted his objections to the Tahsildar - Barshi on 7 th December, 2020, which were
Nitin 6 / 6 13-WP-3673-2020.doc
rejected. On 14th December, 2020, the fnal voters list was published by the State
Election Commission. In view of Article- 243O of the Constitution of India, the
question of stalling the election which are scheduled to be held on 15 th January, 2021
does not arise. However, it is clarifed that the Petitioner can always pursue his
remedy under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. However,
if the said remedy is pursued, it will be open for the parties to raise all their
contentions. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VINAY JOSHI , J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )
