Parasram Satwaji Metkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1821 Bom

                                             {1}
                                                                      wp 4205.16.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                            
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO.4205 OF 2016




                                                    
     Parsram s/o Satwaji Metkar
     age: 38 years, occu: agil
     R/o Jaldhara, tq. Kinwat




                                                   
     Dist. Nanded                                                  Petitioner


              Versus




                                           
     1        The State of Maharashtra
              through District Collector,
                             
              Nanded

     2        The State Election Commission
                            
              through its Assistant Commissioner,
              Maharashtra State

     3        The Returning Officer of
              Grampanchayat Election
      

              village Jaldhara, tq. Kinwat
              Dist. Nanded
   



     4        The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
              Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad
              Division, Aurangabad,
              through Its Member Secretary





              & Deputy Director Research

     5        Sandeep S/o Ganpati Bele
              Age: major, occu: agril
              R/o Jaldhara, tq. Kinwat
              Dist. Nanded                                            Respondents

_______________

Mr.P.B. Rakhunde advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent No.2

{2} wp 4205.16.odt

CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J (Date : 25th APRIL, 2016.)

ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Heard.

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision at admission stage.

3 The petitioner is objecting to the oder dated 4.4.2016

passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper

presented by the petitioner. The nomination paper have been

rejected on the ground that, the validity certificate tendered by

the petitioner, along with the nomination paper does not bear the

signature of the proper authority. The petitioner secured corrected

validation certificate on 6.4.2016 and the copy of the same is

annexed at Exhibit 'D' page 16 of the compilation. The caste

scrutiny committee has directed validation of the caste claim of

the petitioner as belonging to 'Aandh' scheduled tribe community.

4 In view of issuance of validation certificate, there cannot be

any dispute as regards the eligibility of the petitioner to contest

the election of village Panchayat as a member of scheduled tribe

category.

{3} wp 4205.16.odt

5 This Court, by order dated 12.4.2016 permitted the

petitioner to contest the election subject to final orders, those

would be passed in the petition. Petitioner states that he did

contest the election and has been declared as a returned

candidate.

6 In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be

allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The order passed by

the Returning Officer, rejecting the nomination papers of the

petitioner is quashed and set aside. It will, however be open for

respondent No.5 or any other contesting candidate to object to

the election of the petitioner by taking recourse to the remedies

available in law.

7 Rule is accordingly made absolute.

8 There shall be no order as to costs.

(R.M.BORDE, J)

vbd