Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.     CC No. 3350 OF 2017

Reena Suresh Alhat   … Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Another    … Respondents

AND

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5014 OF 2017

Reshma Anil Bhosale    … Petitioner

Versus

Maharashtra State Election  Commission & Others   … Respondents

ORDER

Chelameswar, J.

Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted.

 These  two  matters  arise  out  of  Maharashtra  Municipal

Corporation Act, 1949 (Act No. 59 of 1949).  Petitioners in these two

1

Page 2

SLPs  are  candidates  at  the  ongoing  Elections  to  the  Municipal

Corporation of Pune.  

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 respondent no.4 in SLP (Civil) No.5014 of 2017.

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 bar and the existence of an alternative remedy.   

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  the  contesting  candidates  questioned  the  allotment  of  the

election symbol of BJP 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 of  Reshma Anil  Bhosale

was stayed.   

2

Page 3

Hence these two special leave petitions.

It  was  passionately  urged  by  the  learned  senior  counsel

appearing in both the matters that this Court ought to examine the

questions of law involved in the petitions because these elections at

the grass root level are of great importance in the civic administration

of  Pune.   By  the  impugned  orders,  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) portion of the term of the office would

expire and, therefore, this Court is bound to examine the cases on

merits.

The remedy under Article 136 is a discretionary remedy though it

does not mean that the discretion should be exercised whimsically.

Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  relied  upon a  judgment  of  the

Constitution Bench in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another v.

The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others, AIR 1978

SC 851, in support of the submission that in appropriate cases, this

Court  ought  to  interfere  in  certain  specified  circumstances  in  the

election process notwithstanding the fact that the aggrieved candidate

3

Page 4

would have an opportunity to question the election at a later point of

time by filing an election petition.

On the other hand, the caveator (one of the contesting candidates

- respondents in SLP(C) No.5014 of 2017 relying upon a judgment of

this Court in  Election Commission of India through Secretary v.

Ashok Kumar & Others, (2008) 8 SCC 216, argued that this Court

clearly laid down the circumstances in which interference would be

justified and the case on hand does not fall  within the parameters

indicated therein.

We see no reason to entertain the SLPs for the following reasons

(i) The elections in question pertain to a local body under a local

law of the State Legislature.  The result of the election is most

unlikely to have any effect on the affairs of this nation.  We are

even inclined to believe that the result of the election would

not have any repercussions beyond Pune City.

(ii) The High Court is also a constitutional court, subject of course

to the appellate jurisdiction conferred on this court by law.   

(iii) The petitioners would still  have a forum for  adjudication of

their respective rights and granting appropriate relief if  they

4

Page 5

can  successfully  establish  the  infringement  of  their  legal

rights.  

(iv) The appellate jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution under

Article 136 is purely discretionary.

(v) The  pendency  of  huge  number  of  matters  in  this  Court

coupled with the relative insignificance (from the point of view

of  the  nation)  of  the  injury  to  the  petitioners  herein  are

certainly factors which should weigh with this  Court  before

entertaining these applications.

We are only reminded of a caution given by Justice Frankfurter

in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 353 U.S. 500, 521 : 77

S. Ct.  443, 459 “The Court  may or  may not  be  “doing justice”  in  the  four

insignificant cases it decides today; it certainly is doing injustice to the significant

and important cases on the calendar and to its own role as the supreme judicial

body of the country.” … “Unless the Court vigorously enforces its own criteria for

granting review of cases, it will inevitably face an accumulation of arrears or will

dispose of its essential business in too hurried and therefore too shallow a way.”

5

Page 6

We regret our inability to examine the issues involved in these

two cases.   Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

…......................................J.     (J. CHELAMESWAR)

  …......................................J.     (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

New Delhi February 13, 2017

6