Sunita Janardhan Sidam vs Returning Officer, Gram ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 7901 Bom
Judgement Date : 6 October, 2017

Bombay High Court
Sunita Janardhan Sidam vs Returning Officer, Gram ... on 6 October, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
 Judgment                                            1                                wp6589.17.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 6589  OF 2017


 Sunita Janardhan Sidam,
 Age 59 years, Occu.: Housewife,
 R/o.Akapur, Post : Chemuda, 
 Tq. Mul, Distt. Chandrapur. 
                                                                         ....  PETITIONER.

                                      //  VERSUS //


 The Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat
 Akapur, Tq. Mul, Distt. Chandrapur. 

                                                                        .... RESPONDENT
                                                                                      .

  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri A.V.Band, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Shri Neeraj Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. 
 ___________________________________________________________________

                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The elections of Gram Panchayat, Akapur are scheduled for 16th October, 2017. From Ward No.3, three candidates are to be elected. Out of the three seats, one seat is reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, one seat ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 01:54:57 ::: Judgment 2 wp6589.17.odt is reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) and one seat is for General(Woman). The petitioner submitted her nomination form expressing her intention to contest for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman). However, the Returning Officer has accepted the form of the petitioner showing her as a candidate for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. The petitioner being aggrieved by this decision of the Returning Officer has approached this Court.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out from the copy of the nomination form of the petitioner the details which show beyond doubt that the petitioner wants to contest the election for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman). Against the column as to whether the election is for the seat reserved for woman, the petitioner has marked "Yes".

5. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the petitioner is treated as candidate for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate as in column No.1 of the nomination form the petitioner has stated that she has submitted her nomination form for seat "av" of Ward No.3, which is reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate and if the petitioner intended to contest the election for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman), the petitioner should have stated in column 1 that she wants to contest the election for the seat "c" of Ward No.3.

::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 01:54:57 :::

Judgment 3 wp6589.17.odt

6. The advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is no such declaration/ proclamation that seat "av" is for Scheduled Tribe candidate and seat "c" is reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman). It is submitted that the State Election Commission has issued guidelines clarifying that there is no sub-classification or specification of the wards as "av" "c" "d". On this, the learned A.G.P. has taken instructions from the Returning Officer and has submitted that the petitioner is right in saying that there is no sub- classification or specification of ward as "av" "c" "d".

7. Considering the details as given by the petitioner in the nomination form it is clear that the petitioner has offered her candidature for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman). The decision of the Returning Officer to accept her nomination form for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate is not in consonance with the details given by the petitioner in her nomination form.

8. Hence, the following order.:

i) The Returning Officer is directed to accept the nomination form of the petitioner for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) and take all consequential necessary steps in the matter.
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 01:54:57 :::
  Judgment                                             4                                wp6589.17.odt




                   ii)     The   decision   of   the   Returning   Officer   is   modified

                   accordingly. 



Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

The learned A.G.P. shall communicate this order to the respondent -Returning Officer immediately.

Dictated in open Court at 3.40 p.m. JUDGE RRaut..

::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 01:54:57 :::