Functus officio in election declarations bars later recall, while an intervenor without direct injury lacks appeal standing.

An intervenor in writ proceedings, who was only heard and was not a directly aggrieved party, had no substantive locus standi to maintain a letters patent appeal. The Returning Officer's declaration of election under Rule 30, once made after the withdrawal period for a sole surviving candidate, was mandatory and rendered the officer functus officio; the declaration could not later be cancelled by administrative recall, even after an interim order was withdrawn. The proper remedy lay under the election law, not in reversal by the Returning Officer. The challenged order was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an intervenor in writ proceedings had locus standi to maintain the letters patent appeal against the order passed in the writ petition; (ii) Whether the Returning Officer could cancel the declaration of election made under Rule 30 after the candidate was declared elected on the basis of an interim order and whether the writ petition had become infructuous.

Issue (i): Whether an intervenor in writ proceedings had locus standi to maintain the letters patent appeal against the order passed in the writ petition.

Analysis: The intervenor was only heard in the writ petition and was not a direct party aggrieved by the impugned order. The challenge arose from proceedings between other parties concerning rejection and acceptance of nomination papers and the election outcome. Mere assertion of grievance was held insufficient to confer a substantive right of appeal on an intervenor who was not directly affected by the order.

Conclusion: The intervenor had no locus standi to maintain the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the Returning Officer could cancel the declaration of election made under Rule 30 after the candidate was declared elected on the basis of an interim order and whether the writ petition had become infructuous.

Analysis: Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 required the Returning Officer to forthwith declare as elected a sole surviving candidate after expiry of the withdrawal period. Once such declaration was made, the Returning Officer became functus officio and had no authority to recall or set aside the declaration by a later order, even if the interim order was subsequently recalled. The remedy, if available, lay elsewhere under the election law and not by administrative reversal by the Returning Officer.

Conclusion: The Returning Officer could not cancel the earlier declaration, and the order treating the matter as infructuous was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the challenged order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A Returning Officer who has declared a candidate elected under the mandatory uncontested-election rule becomes functus officio and cannot later recall that declaration, and an intervenor without direct legal injury has no substantive locus standi to maintain an appeal.

---