REENA SURESH ALHATversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER

                               [2017] I S.C.R. 600



A                          REENA SURESH ALHAT
                                        v.
                 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER
                (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6264 of20 I 7)
B                            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 -
c    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;
D    (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
E
     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
'F
           216; Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 353 U.S.
           500, 521 : 77 S. Ct. 443, 459 - referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
     1978 (2) SCR 272                 referred to              Para8
G    (2008) 8 sec 216                 referred to              Para9
     353 U.S. 500, 521                referred to               Para 11
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
     (C)6264of 20I7.
H
                                       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        B
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, Sanjay Kharde,
Pratul Bhadale, Kaartik Ashok, Advs. for the appearing parties.
                                                                              c
      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
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                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 1 S.C.R.


A           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
B     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) portion of
      the term of the office would expire and, therefore, this Court is bound to
      examine the cases on merits.
c
             8.,The remedy under Article 136 is a discretionary remedy though
      it does not mean that the discretion shou'Id be exercised whimsically.
      Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of the
      Constitution Bench in the case of Mo/tinder Singft Gill & Another v.
      The Chief Election Commissioner, New Del/ti & Others, AIR 1978
D     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 would ·have an
      opportunity to question the electi_on at a later point of time by filing an
      election petition.
E           9. On the other ))and, the caveator _(one of the contesting
      candidates_ - respondents in. SLP(C) No.5014 of 2017 relying upon a
      judgment of this Court in Elet;tion Commission of India tftrougft
      Secretary v. As/wk Kumar & Others, (2008) 8 SCC 216, argued that
      this Court clearly faid down the circumstances in which interference
F     would be justified and the case on hand does not fall within the parameters
      indicated therein.
            10. We see no reason to ent_ertain the SLPs for the following
      reasons
             (i)     The elections in question pertain to a local body under a
G                    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 hav~ any repercussions beyond Pune
                     City.
H
   REENA SURESH ALHAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &                                    603
            ANOTHER [CHELAMESWAR, J.]

        (ii)    The High Court is also a constitutional court, subject of·          A
                course to the appellate jurisdiction conferred on this court
                bylaw.
        (iii)   The petitioners would still have a forum for adjudication of
                their respective rights and granting appropriate relief if they
                can successfully establish the infringement of their legal         B
                rights.
        (iv)    The appellate jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution under
                Article 136 is purely discretionaJ"Y.
        (v)     The pendency of huge number of matters in this Court
                coupled with the relative insignificance (from the point of         c
                view of the nation) of the injury to the petitioners herein are
                certainly factors which should weigh with this Court before
                entertaining these applications.
         11. We are only reminded of a caution given by Justice Frankfurter
  in Rog{!rs v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 353 U.S. 500, 521 : 77 S.            D
  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        E
· face an accumulation of arrears or will dispose of its essential business
  in too hurried and therefore too shallow a way."
        12. We regret our inability to examine the issues involved in these
· !Wo case.s. Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
                                                                                    F
 Kalpana K. Tripathy                                             SLPs dismissed.