Bombay High Court
Puja Balu Kholse And Ors vs The State Election Commission And Ors on 9 August, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:32912-DB
48-WP-10346-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10346 OF 2023
Puja Balu Kholse And Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Election Commission And Ors. ...Respondents
------------
Adv. Jay Patil for the Petitioner.
Adv. Sachindra B. Shetye for Respondent No. 1.
Adv. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the State.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : August 9, 2024.
P. C. :
1. By this petition, the challenge is to the Judgment and Order
dated 21st April, 2023 passed by the Respondent No.1- State Election
Commission in Special Application No.2 of 2023 and the order dated
14th February 2023 passed by the Collector in the Dispute Application.
2. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner had contested the
panchayat elections from village Kothale and was elected. The
affidavit of election expenses had to be filed within a period of 30
days, which expired on or about 17th February 2021. The case of the
Petitioner is that the Petitioner affirmed the affidavit of election
expenses, however, in spite of affirmation of the same before the
Tahsildar, the affidavit of election expenses remained to be submitted
Harish 1 of 5
48-WP-10346-2023.doc
by the Petitioner. Subsequently, notice came to be issued on 4 th
November, 2022 by the Respondent No.3-Tahsildar under Section
14B(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and after
hearing the Petitioner, the order of disqualification was passed on 14 th
February 2023. Being aggrieved by the order of disqualification, the
Petitioner filed Special Application before the State Election
Commissioner to modify the impugned order to reduce the period of
disqualification from five years up to the next general election.
3. Heard Mr. Patil learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Shetye,
learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Gavhane, learned AGP.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would point out
the affidavit at page 19 to 21 of the Petition and would submit that
the same was affirmed before the Executive Magistrate Malshiras on
16th February 2021. He would further point out that the election
expenses as disclosed in the affidavit was a meagre amount of
Rs.9423/- and inadvertently, the affidavit was taken back instead of
submitting the same. He would further submit that in the Appeal
before the State Election Commission, a specific ground was taken
about the Covid pandemic and the fact that thereafter the Petitioner
tried to file their affidavit of election expenses, but on the ground of
delay, the concerned officer refused to accept the same. He would
further submit that the order does not take into consideration the
Harish 2 of 5
48-WP-10346-2023.doc
decision of the Apex Court in Suo Motu, Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020
where the Apex Court had excluded the period from 15 th March, 2020
till 28th February 2022 while computing the limitation. He submits that
in view of the extension of period of limitation, the decision of
disqualification could not have been passed by the Collector. He
submits that the notice came to be issued in November 2022 and the
present Petition was filed after the decision of the State Election
Commission.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the State Election
Commission submitted that the provision of Section 14B of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 provides for disqualification
where a person has failed to lodge account of election expenses
within time and in the manner required by the State Election
Commission. He would further submit that after the elections were
held for Kothale Gram Panchayat, the candidate was required to
furnish details of the expenses to the returning officer within a period
of 30 days, which was not done in the present case and therefore,
there was a default resulting in violation of the mandatory provisions
and therefore the Collector had rightly disqualified the Petitioner.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
7. The affidavit to which the attention of this Court has been
Harish 3 of 5
48-WP-10346-2023.doc
drawn by the learned counsel for the Petitioner would in fact establish
the case of the Petitioner that the affidavit of election expenses were
affirmed on 16th February, 2021. The case would have taken different
turn if there was no such affidavit of expenses produced on record.
Though the affidavit was affirmed, the same remained to be filed
after being affirmed before the same authority to whom it was
required to be submitted. I also find considerable force in the
submission of Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
period of limitation stood extended by virtue of the decision of the
Apex Court. Despite the ground being taken in the Appeal as regards
the Covid pandemic and that the concerned officer refused to accept
affidavit on the ground of delay, perusal of the impugned order of the
State Election Commission does not indicate consideration of the said
issue.
8. In view of the above, in my opinion, the matter is required to be
remanded to the State Election Commission to be decided afresh in
light of the decision of the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)
No.3 of 2020.
9. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the State Election
Commissioner on 26th August 2024 at 11:00. The State Election
Commissioner is requested to decide the issue afresh in light of the
decision of the Apex Court and uninfluenced by the observations
Harish 4 of 5
48-WP-10346-2023.doc
made in the impugned order.
10. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
11. Considering that the Petitioner has been disqualified, the State
Election Commissioner is requested to decide the Appeal
expeditiously and in any event on or before 20th September, 2024.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Harish 5 of 5
Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/08/2024 11:26:42
