Judgment 1 wp6533.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6533 OF 2017
Sau. Jayshri W/o. Arvindrao Nikam,
Aged about 33 years, Occu.: Housewife,
R/o.village Wandali, Tah. Warud,
District : Amravati.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Amravati,
District : Amravati.
2. The Returning Officer/ Tahsildar
for the election of member of
village Wandali, Tah. Warud,
District : Amravati.
3. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat
Wandali, Tahsil : Warud,
District : Amravati.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Mrs. Pallavi Mahashabde, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms M.A.Barabde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 05, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:07:04 :::
Judgment 2 wp6533.17.odt
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed on record an affidavit stating that the respondent No.3-Secretary, Gram Panchayat is served by private notice. Even otherwise, the respondent No.3-Secretary, Gram Panchayat is a formal party and is not directly connected with the lis.
4. The petitioner submitted her nomination form for elections of the Gram Panchayat scheduled on 16th October, 2017. The nomination form is rejected on the ground that though a toilet is constructed in the house where the petitioner is residing, it is not in use. Apparently, the Returning Officer relied on the subsequent part of the provisions of Section 14(1)(j-5) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
5. The advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the certificate issued by Gram Sevak/Village Development Officer on 25 th September, 2017 to the effect that the petitioner is residing in the house owned by her, a toilet is constructed in the house and the toilet is in regular use. The grievance of the petitioner is that her nomination form is illegally rejected, without there being any justification.
6. The learned A.G.P., though supported the impugned decision, could not point out anything to show that the claim made by the petitioner is ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:07:04 ::: Judgment 3 wp6533.17.odt not correct and that the certificate dated 25 th September, 2017, referred above, is not reliable.
7. Considering the facts of the case, I find that the impugned decision of the Returning Officer is unsustainable.
8. Hence, the following order :
i) The impugned decision is quashed.
ii) Respondent No.2-Returning Officer is directed to
accept the nomination form of the petitioner and to take all consequential necessary steps in the matter. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
9. This judgment is dictated in Court at 11.55 a.m. The respondent No.2 shall act on authenticated copy of this judgment. The learned A.G.P. shall communicate this judgment to the respondent No.2- Returning Officer immediately.
JUDGE RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:07:04 :::