WP 2110.16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2110 OF 2016
Sunita w/o Jivan Mahale,
Aged about 23 years,
Occupation-Housewife,
R/o. Uklipen, Washim,
Tahsil and District-Washim. .. PETITIONER
.. VERSUS ..
1] Sangita w/o Vitthal Bhoyar,
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation-Housewife,
R/o. Uklipen Washim,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
2] Shobha w/o Nilesh Mahale,
Aged about 26 years,
Occupation-Housewife,
R/o. Uklipen Washim,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
3] S.R. Kulkarni,
Occupation-Junior Engineer,
Returning Officer for the Election
of Gram Panchayat, Ukali Pen,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
4] V.H. Pradhan Junior Assistance,
Panchayat Samiti, Washim as
Assistant Returning Officer of the
Election Gram Panchayat Ukali Pen,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
5] Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Washim,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
6] Secretary, Gram Panchayat Office,
Ukalipen, Tahsil and District-Washim.
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:50:25 :::
WP 2110.16.odt 2
7] Kundlik s/o Laxman Jaitade,
Aged about Major,
Occupation-Farmer,
R/o. Uklipen, Tahsil and
District-Washim.
8] Pralhad s/o Vyankatrao Ambhore,
Aged about Major,
Occupation-Farmer,
R/o. Uklipen, Tahsil and District
Washim. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate a/w Shri R.D. Karode,
Advocate for petitioner,
Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1,
Shri V.P. Gangane, AGP for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : JULY 27, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for parties. 2] This petition takes an exception to the order dated 22.2.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Washim dismissing Election Petition No.2/2015 and upholding election of respondent no.1, as legal and valid. ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:50:25 ::: WP 2110.16.odt 3 3] It was the case of petitioner that respondent no.1 was contesting Gram Panchayat elections and filed her nomination form from general category candidate. The list of validly nominated candidates was published and in the said list her name was shown as a candidate from general category. It is submitted that at the time of allotment of symbol, Election Officer, in connivance with the panel to which she belonged, had shown her candidature from the seat reserved for general (woman) and she got elected. 4] Petitioner challenged election of respondent no.1 in Election Petition No.2/2015 before the Civil Court. Vide impugned order dated 22.2.2016, petition was dismissed. The said order of dismissal of Election Petition is the subject matter of present petition.
5] The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that documents submitted by respondents clearly indicate that she was a candidate from general category. Learned counsel points out that respondent no.1, in connivance with the panel, could obtain symbol showing her candidate belonging to general (woman) category. According to learned counsel, impugned order passed by the trial court is against the documents submitted by respondents and ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:50:25 ::: WP 2110.16.odt 4 petitioner, who was the candidate next to respondent no.1, is to be declared as elected by setting aside the election of respondent no.1.
6] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that candidates contesting elections of Gram Panchayat were required to file nomination forms manually and also by on line mode. It is submitted that for the first time such procedure was introduced. Looking to the difficulties being faced, State Election Commission issued a communication dated 20.7.2015 to the Collectors of various districts including Washim and informed that because of some mistakes mentioned in the communication in filling up the forms on line, candidates shall not be declared invalid at the stage of acceptance and scrutiny of the forms. Respondent no.1 had also filed nomination form on-line and manually along with the supporting documents. In the form manually submitted, respondent no.1 mentioned Ward No.1 from the category general (woman). In on-line form also, tick mark was made before general (woman) category. Refuting the allegations of collusion between Election Officer and respondent no.1, she submitted that while filling up on- line nomination form, inadvertently Ward No.1A was filled in. ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:50:25 ::: WP 2110.16.odt 5 According to her, it was just a technical error and that could have been ignored in view of the communication dated 20.7.2015.
7] Another submission on behalf of respondent no.1 is that during allotment of symbol, ward number and category of seat reserved was rightly mentioned by election officer in front of the name of respondent no.1, though an error had occurred in the list of validly nominated candidates. Respondent no.1 noticed the error in the list on 22.7.2015 and immediately she brought the same to the notice of Election Officer with a request to correct the same. The mistake, in the list of validly nominated candidates, was accordingly corrected and nothing was wrong as the said error was otherwise required to be ignored in view of the communication dated 20.7.2015 issued by the Collector. In this background, respondent no.1 prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8] This court, vide order dated 3.7.2017, directed respondent no.5 to produce the original record. In pursuance to the direction, learned A.G.P. has produced the record. It appears from an undertaking (gehi=) dated 17.7.2015 submitted by respondent no.1 that her ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:50:25 ::: WP 2110.16.odt 6 candidature was from Ward No.1 for the reserved category general (woman). The learned Civil Judge, on appreciation of documents rightly observed that error committed by Returning Officer is protected by sub-section 7 of section 15 of the Mumbai Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and petitioner could not prove that respondent no.1 filed her nomination for general category and not for the category general (woman).
9] This court, on overall scrutiny of the material placed on record, does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. As such no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition No.2110 of 2016 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) Gulande, PA ::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:50:25 :::