Judgment 1 wp6539.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6539 OF 2017
Smt. Sumitra W/o. Prakash Chakole,
Aged 50 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Nilaj, Po. Salwa, Tahsil : Parseoni,
District : Nagpur - 440 401.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
The Returning Officer Cum Tahsildar,
Parseoni, Tahsil and District : Parseoni.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri G.D.Asole, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms M.A.Barabde, A.G.P. for Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Returning Officer by which the nomination form of the petitioner for the election of Grampanchayat scheduled on 16th October, 2017 is rejected. The nomination ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:48:54 ::: Judgment 2 wp6539.17.odt form of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that though she submitted nomination form for contesting the election from Prabhag reserved for woman belonging to backward class, she has neither submitted caste certificate nor caste validity certificate along with the nomination form.
4. According to the petitioner, the photocopies of caste certificate and caste validity certificate were submitted along with the nomination form and at the time of scrutiny the originals were also produced. The petitioner has placed on record (at Annexure C- Page 20 of the petition) copy of caste validity certificate issued by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee on 30th January, 2008.
5. The respondent-Returning Officer refuted the claim of the petitioner that she has submitted the photocopies of the caste certificate and caste validity certificate along with the nomination form. It is further submitted that at the time of scrutiny also neither the petitioner nor any authorized representative of the petitioner were present to remove the deficiencies.
6. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that though the submission made on behalf of the respondent-Returning Officer is not correct, even, for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the photocopies of the certificates were not submitted along with the nomination ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:48:54 ::: Judgment 3 wp6539.17.odt form, the Returning Officer could not have rejected the nomination form on that ground as per the proposition laid down in the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anant Janardan Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra & oth., reported in AIR 2002 Bom. 87.
7. The petitioner and the respondent-Returning Officer have joined on an issue which requires adjudication of disputed question. In normal course, this Court would not undertake the exercise of resolving such an issue in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, however, in the facts of the present case, I find that the petitioner is having caste validity certificate issued by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee on 30 th January, 2008 which substantiates that the petitioner belongs to "Teli" community which is recognized as backward class community in the State of Maharashtra and the respondent-Returning Officer has not been able to point out that the petitioner gained anything by not submitting the photocopies of the caste certificate and caste validity certificate along with the nomination form. The fact being that the petitioner has substantiated her claim that she belongs to backward class community and she is having caste certificate and caste validity certificate to that effect and considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of Charles K. Skaria Vs. C. Mathew, reported in 1980(2) SCC 752, the claim of the petitioner in this petition is required to be accepted and the impugned decision rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner being unsustainable, has to be set aside. ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:48:54 :::
Judgment 4 wp6539.17.odt
8. This Court passed an interim order on 5 th October, 2017 directing the respondent to provisionally accept the nomination form of the petitioner and to take all consequential necessary steps in the matter. The learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. have submitted that the nomination form of the petitioner is accepted and she is shown as validly nominated candidate for the elections of Gram Panchayat to be held on 16th October, 2017.
9. In view of the above, following order is passed:
i) The impugned decision of the Returning Officer is quashed.
ii) The respondent-Returning Officer is directed to consider the petitioner as validly nominated candidate for the election of Gram Panchayat, Nilaj, Tahsil and District : Nagpur to be held on 16th October, 2017 and to take all consequential necessary steps in the matter.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment.
JUDGE RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:48:54 :::