Parveen Bano Sheikh Tasleem vs State Of Maha., Through Election ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1480 Bom

                                                                                wp2210.16
                                           1




                                                                             
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                     
                          WRIT PETITION    No. 2210 OF 2016


    Parveen Bano Sheikh Tasleem,
    aged about 26 years,




                                                    
    Occupation : Household,
    r/o Bharat Nagar, Shiloda,
    Post Sukoda, Distt. Akola.                 .... PETITIONER.




                                         
                              VERSUS


    1. State of Maharashtra
                               
       Through Election Commissioner,
                              
       State Election Commission,
       New Administrative Building,
       In front of Mantralaya,
       Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-32.
      


    2. Returning Officer,
   



       (for bye-election of G.P. Shloda)
       Post Sukoda, Akola.

    3. The Secretary,





       Gram Panchayat, Shiloda,
       Post Sukoda, Akola.

    4. Hushna Bano w/o Chote Khan
       aged about 55 years,
       Occupation : Household





       R/o Shiloda, Post Sukoda,
       Distt. Akola.

    5. Anjum Parveen Sheikh Shabbir,
       aged about 25 years,
       Occupation : Household
       R/o Shiloda, Post Sukoda,
       Distt. Akola.                            ....  RESPONDENTS.




      ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:08:32 :::
                                                                                    wp2210.16
                                                2



    Shri S.I. Jagirdar Advocate for the Petitioner.




                                                                                
    Shri Amit Balpande, AGP, for respondents 1 and 2.
                                        .....




                                                        
                                          CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 13.04.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of parties.

2. The nomination form of the petitioner submitted by

her for contesting bye-election of Gram Panchayat Shiloda has

been rejected on 04.4.2016 by respondent no. 2 on the ground

that her name does not appear in the 2016 voters list for the

legislative assembly. Learned counsel for the petitioner states

that the rejection is patently illegal and that the name of the

petitioner does appear in the year 2016 voters list for the

legislative assembly. In support, he draws my attention to

Annexure-B (page 12) which according to him is the voters list.

3. Learned AGP for respondents 1 and 2 states that the

voters list at page 12 (Annexure-B) is a provisional voters list and

there is nothing available on record in the nature of final voters

list from which it could be confirmed that the name of the

petitioner indeed appears in the final voters list.

4. On perusal of the voters list (Annexure-B), I find that

wp2210.16

what is submitted by learned AGP is correct. It is a provisional

voters list. Under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Village

Panchayats Act it is necessary that the voters list should be the

one which is acceptable; which can be relied upon under Section

13 as a voters list for the legislative assembly and which is

notified by the State Election Commission. In other words, it

should be a final voters list. The voters list vide Annexure-B is

not such a final voters list. ig Opportunity was granted to the

petitioner to place on record the final voters list. However,

learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to strike of the

employees in Tahsil Office of Balapur, certified copy of final

voters list could not be procured. He also points out that as per

Rule 11(3) of the Village Panchayat Rules, 1959, list of voters has

been accorded the status of conclusive proof about right of voters

in the final voters list.

5. The reason submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner for not producing the final voters list is not acceptable,

especially when no document to support it is placed on record.

Even then, one opportunity, as seen from the order passed on

04.4.2016 by the respondent no. 2, had been granted to the

petitioner and same was not availed of by the petitioner.

6. As regards the provision of Rules 12 and 11(3) of the

wp2210.16

Election Rules, I must say, it applies to final voters list and not to

any provisional voters list. Therefore, as of now, it is clear that

the petitioner has not produced any evidence on record to show

that she is qualified to be a voter by virtue of her name

appearing in the final voters list. On this count, the impugned

order cannot be faulted with.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon

the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4245/15 on 23.7.2015

submits that a direction for provisionally accepting the

nomination of the petitioner should be issued. There can be no

second opinion about the proposition of law. But, the proposition

of law would have to be applied only in the light of the facts and

circumstances peculiar to each case. In W.P. No. 4245/15

nomination paper was rejected on the ground that the petitioner

therein did not submit any account of expenses of the election

which she contested in the year 2010. This is not the ground of

rejection of nomination paper in the instant case. The nomination

paper has been rejected only on the ground that petitioner's

name does not appear in the final voters list. In this regard,

provisions of Section 13(2) would have to be considered. It lays

down that no person whose name is not entered in the list of

voters shall be qualified to be elected for any Ward of the village.

wp2210.16

The provision under Section 13(2) is in clear words and requires

no interpretation. It makes a person, whose name does not

appear in the voters list, as ineligible to be elected for any Ward

of the village. This being the position, I do not think that the

petitioner can seek any assistance from the order passed by this

Court on 23.7.2015 in W.P. No. 4245/15.

8. If at all the petitioner feels that she would be able to

prove her claim by producing on record the final voters list for the

year 2016 disclosing an entry in her name therein in future, the

petitioner would be at liberty to resort to appropriate remedy at

that time. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the petition and

it deserves to be dismissed.

9. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. Rule

discharged. No costs.

JUDGE

/TA/