LexREENA SURESH ALHAT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E 'F G H [2017] I S.C.R. 600 REENA SURESH ALHAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6264 of20 I 7) FEBRUARY 13, 2017 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, Jf.f Constitution of India - Art. 136 - Special Leave Petition - Entertainability of - Writ petitions before High Court by the candidates contesting election to Municipal Corporation - Challenging certain actions taken by the State Election CoJ11mission - Orders of High Court passed against the petitioners - Special Leave Petitions filed - Held: The petitions are not entertainable on the grounds : (i) result of the election does not have repercussions 011 the affairs of nation; (ii) jurisdiction u/Art. 136 is discretionary; (iii) High Court is also a constitutional court (iv) the petitioner would still have a forum for adjudication of their respective rights - Pendency of huge number of matters in Supreme Court coupled with relative insignificance of the present case, are also the factors which should weigh with Supreme Court before entertaining the Special Leave Petitions - Petitions are dismissed - Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Mohinder Singh Gill & Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 851 : 1978 (2) SCR 272; Election CoJ11111ission of India through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 216; Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 353 U.S. 500, 521 : 77 S. Ct. 443, 459 - referred to. 1978 (2) SCR 272 (2008) 8 sec 216 353 U.S. 500, 521 Case Law Reference referred to referred to referred to Para8 Para9 Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)6264of 20I7. 600 REENA SURESH ALHAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & 601 ANOTHER .. From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2017 of the High A Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1663 of2017. WITH SLP (C) No. 5014 of2017. Dushyant Dave, Fali S. Nariman, Basanth R., Sr. Advs., Ashutosh Dubey, A. D. N. Rao, Azeem Samuel, Vipul D., Abhishek Chauhan, V. S. Rawat, Sushi! Pandey, Sandeep Deshmukh, Subhash Jadhav, Ankur Chawla, Arunabh Chaudhary, Ms. Kanika Singh, Kalyani Lal, R. K. Mohit Gupta, Sangram Singh, V. Tamar, Nar Hari Singh, San jay Kharde, Pratul Bhadale, Kaartik Ashok, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Order of the Court was delivered by CHELAMESWAR, J. I. Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted. 2. These two matters arise out of Maharashtra Municipal B c Corporation Act, 1949 (Act No. 59 of 1949). Petitioners in these two D SLPs are candidates at the ongoing Elections to the Municipal Corporation of Pune. 3. Aggrieved by certain action taken by the respondents, two writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court of Bombay, one by the petitioner in SLP (Civil) ... CC No. 3350 of 2017 and the other by E respondent no.4 in SLP (Civil) No.5014 of2017. 4. Reena Suresh Alhat's nomination was rejected by an order dated 4.2.2017. She challenged the rejection of her nomination by a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by an order under challenge dated 7.2.2017 on the twin grounds of a constitutional F bar and the existence of an alternative remedy. 5. In the case of Reshma Anil Bhosale, the dispute is regarding the allotment of a symbol. The petitioner claimed to be a candidate sponsored by the Bharatiya Janata Party. The said symbol was allotted to the petitioner by an order of the respondent dated 8.2.2017. One of G the contesting candidates que-stioned the allotment of the election symbol ofBJP by filing a writ petition. Rule nisi was issued and by an interim order of the High Court, the order of the Election Commission allotting the symbol in favour ofReshma Anil Bhosale was stayed. H 602 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1 S.C.R. 6. Hence these two special leave petitions. 7. It was passionately urged by the learned senior counsel appearing in both the matters that this Court ought to examine the questions oflaw involved in the petitions because these elections at the grass r'oot level are of great importance in the civic administration of Pune. By the impugned orde.rs, the High Court deprived the petitioners of their valuable electoral rights. Though the petitioners have an alternative remedy to challenge the election of returned candidates, such a remedy is time consuming and in the process a substantial (if not the entire)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.