Delhi Municipal Corp. elections to standing committee and power of mayor to re-scrutiny/ re-poll?

-

 



 

After Delhi municipal corporation elections, mayor/ RO called for meeting for purpose of election to standing committee. After this election, RO sent notice for re-poll on basis of re-scrutiny.  The dispute is with respect to candidate number 6 who according to the Mayor/RO should be Ms. Sarika Choudhary belonging to AAP and according to the petitioners Mr. Pankaj Luthra belonging to BJP. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that[1]:

 

(i)             The scheme of the DMC Act, 1957 is as follows—Chapter II of the DMC Act, 1957 deals with the establishment of Corporations.

 

(ii)           Section 35(1) provides that a corporation shall at its first meeting in each year, elect one of its members to be the chairperson, who is known as the mayor and another member to be the Deputy Mayor of the corporation. Section 3 provides for the establishment of the municipal corporation. Sub-section 3 of Section 3 then indicates the composition of the corporation.

 

(iii)         As per Section 45 of the DMC Act, 1957 at the first meeting of the corporation, a Standing Committee is to be constituted consisting of six members elected by the Councillor amongst themselves.

 

(iv)         Section 49 of DMC Act, 1957 deals with the functions of the Standing Committee which provides inter alia that the Standing Committee shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as are specifically conferred or imposed upon it by or under the Act of 1957.

 

(v)           A cursory look at the provisions of the DMC Act, 1957 shows that various powers and functions are assigned to the Standing Committee, specifically in Section 83, 109, 110, 139, 200, 202, 205, 206, 302, 313, 314, 376 and 450 etc. It includes power of adoption of budget estimates, disposal of property, procedure for making contracts, minimum width of new public streets, layout plans, alteration or modification of streets made in breach of Section 303, general power to pay compensation and power to institute legal proceedings/legal opinion etc.

 

(vi)         The Standing Committee is, therefore, an important statutory committee required to be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the DMC Act, 1957.

 

(vii)       Regulation 51 of the Regulations, 1958 provides inter alia election of six members to be elected by the Councillors from amongst themselves for the membership of the Standing Committee.

 

(viii)     The role of the Mayor/RO would come into play firstly, at the stage of scrutiny of the nomination paper (Regulation 51 (2) of Regulations, 1958) and secondly at the stage of putting the ballot paper into the ballot box (Regulation 51(8)(b) of the Regulations, 1958). The Mayor/RO is then required to open the ballot box as per Regulation 51 (10)(a)(i) of the Regulations, 1958 and to take out the ballot papers contained therein and to count the number of ballot papers so taken out or cause it to be counted and record such numbers in a statement.

 

(ix)         The Mayor/RO is then required to scrutinize the ballot papers and separate the ballot papers which she deems valid from those which she rejects as invalid by endorsing thereon that they were 'rejected' and the ground of such rejection. Then the Mayor/RO is required to arrange the valid ballot papers in parcels according to first preferences as recorded for each candidate and then to count the votes in the meeting in the presence of such members as may be present with the assistance of such persons as may be appointed by the Mayor/RO in that behalf.

 

(x)           It is at this stage that, Regulation 51(10)(b) of the Regulations, 1958 requires that the Rules of 1956 shall have application so far as they apply in relation to the counting of votes at the election of the members of the Standing Committee as they apply in relation to the counting of votes at election in the council constituencies subject to the modification that any reference to the Returning Officer in any of those provisions shall be construed as a reference to the Mayor.

 

(xi)         The election of the members of the Standing Committee has to take place with the system of proportional representation by means of a single transferrable vote. It is by way of incorporation, that the Rules, 1956 have been made applicable in relation to the counting of votes. Therefore, Rule 115, 116(1), 121 to 127 and 129 of the Rules, 1956 will have full application in relation to the counting of votes at an election of the members of the Standing Committee.

 

(xii)       Regulation 51(11) of the Regulations, 1958 which provides for the preparation and certification of a return in Form-IV, would therefore have application after the counting of votes takes place as envisaged under Regulation 51(10)(b) of the Regulations, 1958.

 

(xiii)     It is also to be noted that under sub-regulation 10 (a) of Regulation 51 of the Regulations, 1958, after the opening of the ballot box and taking the ballot papers out of the boxes, the ballot papers are to be counted and it is to be recorded in a statement. It is, thereafter, that the scrutiny is contemplated which includes the separation of the ballot paper as valid from the one which are invalid endorsing thereon, the ballot rejected and the ground of such rejection. It is thereafter, the valid ballot papers are to be arranged in parcels according to the first preference recorded for each candidate. Then the count of the votes, in the meeting, in the presence of such of the members as may be present, with the assistance of such persons, as may be appointed by the Mayor/RO, would take place.

 

(xiv)     As to how the candidate would be elected, it is prescribed under Rule 123 of the Rules, 1956 which says that if at the end of any count or at the end of the transfer of any parcel or sub-parcel of an excluded candidate, the value of the ballot paper credited to a candidate is equal to, or greater than the quota, that candidate shall be declared elected.

 

(xv)       The rejection of a poll ballot paper once the counting was over would lead to a distortion of the entire election result. The same will create doubts in the minds of the voters about the fairness and transparency of the election process, and this can erode the confidence that the voter has in the election system which in turn strikes at the core of our democratic setup.

 

(xvi)     The fundamental intent of the Rules is that once at the stage of scrutiny, the ballot paper was not rejected, the same cannot be rejected, at the stage of final declaration of result.

 

(xvii)   If such a discretion to reject and declare invalid an otherwise accepted ballot or to accept and declare valid an otherwise rejected ballot is conferred upon the Mayor/RO, no result would be finalised unless the same is of the choice of, and is favourable to, the Mayor/RO.

 

 

Conclusion: The action of Mayor/RO of rejecting the ballot and declaring it to be invalid, after the stage of scrutiny had reached and the quota successfully ascertained, the same is bad in law and the decision of re-poll taken by the Mayor/RO is impermissible as the same was not based on any material relevant to the issue.


[1] 2023:DHC:3585

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more