Bombay High Court
Kamaji Ganpati Avhad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 March, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-2786.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2786 OF 2016
Anjanabai Gangadhar Garkar,
Age: 45 years, Occu.:- Agril.,
R/o : At Ankhali, Post: Salna,
Tq. Aundha, Dist. Hingoli. ...PETITIONER
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Aundha
(Nagnath), Tq. Aundha (N.)
Dist. Hingoli.
3. State Co-operative Election Authority,
Central Administrative Building
Shivajinagar, Pune.
4. The Taluka Co-operative Election
Officer, Aundha (Nagnath),
Tq. Aundha (N), Dist. Hingoli.
5. The Returning Officer,
Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari
Society Ltd., Ankhali,
Tq. Aundha (Nagnath),
Dist. Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2783 OF 2016
Dwarkabai Gangadhar Garkar,
Age: 55 years, Occu.:- Agril.,
R/o : At Ankhali, Post: Salna,
Tq. Aundha, Dist. Hingoli. ...PETITIONER
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:20:49 :::
2 WP-2786.16
2. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Aundha
(Nagnath), Tq. Aundha (N.)
Dist. Hingoli.
3. State Co-operative Election Authority,
Central Administrative Building
Shivajinagar, Pune.
4. The Taluka Co-operative Election
Officer, Aundha (Nagnath),
Tq. Aundha (N), Dist. Hingoli.
5. The Returning Officer,
Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari
Society Ltd., Ankhali,
Tq. Aundha (Nagnath),Dist. Hingoli.
ig ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2784 OF 2016
Damodar S/o Bapurao Garkar,
Age: 40 years, Occu.:- Agril.,
R/o : At Ankhali, Post: Salna,
Tq. Aundha, Dist. Hingoli. ...PETITIONER
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Aundha
(Nagnath), Tq. Aundha (N.)
Dist. Hingoli.
3. State Co-operative Election Authority,
Central Administrative Building
Shivajinagar, Pune.
4. The Taluka Co-operative Election
Officer, Aundha (Nagnath),
Tq. Aundha (N), Dist. Hingoli.
5. The Returning Officer,
Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari
Society Ltd., Ankhali,
Tq. Aundha (Nagnath),
Dist. Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:20:49 :::
3 WP-2786.16
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2016
Dattarao S/o Uttamrao Garkar,
Age: 23 years, Occu.:- Agril.,
R/o : At Ankhali, Post: Salna,
Tq. Aundha, Dist. Hingoli. ...PETITIONER
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Aundha
(Nagnath), Tq. Aundha (N.)
Dist. Hingoli.
3. State Co-operative Election Authority,
Central Administrative Building
Shivajinagar, Pune.
4. The Taluka Co-operative Election
Officer, Aundha (Nagnath),
Tq. Aundha (N), Dist. Hingoli.
5. The Returning Officer,
Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari
Society Ltd., Ankhali,
Tq. Aundha (Nagnath),
Dist. Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2788 OF 2016
Kamaji S/o Ganpati Avhad,
Age: 35 years, Occu.:- Agril.,
R/o : At Ankhali, Post: Salna,
Tq. Aundha, Dist. Hingoli. ...PETITIONER
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:20:49 :::
4 WP-2786.16
2. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Aundha
(Nagnath), Tq. Aundha (N.)
Dist. Hingoli.
3. State Co-operative Election Authority,
Central Administrative Building
Shivajinagar, Pune.
4. The Taluka Co-operative Election
Officer, Aundha (Nagnath),
Tq. Aundha (N), Dist. Hingoli.
5. The Returning Officer,
Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari
Society Ltd., Ankhali,
Tq. Aundha (Nagnath),
Dist. Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. V.G. Shelke, AGP for respondents No. 1 and 2
Mr. Sahebrao K. Kadam, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5
.....
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 9th MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for
parties finally, with consent.
2. Aggrieved by orders dated 01-03-2016 passed by the appellate
authority - Assistant Registrar, Co-operative societies, Aunda Nagnath,
District Hingoli, confirming rejection of nominations of petitioners in
respect of their stated candidature to two reserved seats for women
category in writ petitions No. 2786 and 2783 of 2016 and also three
seats for general borrower category in writ petitions No. 2784, 2787
and 2788 of 2016 in the elections to managing committee of Ankhali
Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society. Ltd. Ankhali, the petitioners are
before this court.
5 WP-2786.16
3. Main grievance of the petitioners is that, the orders have been
passed by hyper technical consideration rather than spirit underlying
the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules,
2014 (for short "Rules of 2014") letting opening to the returning officer
to give opportunity to remove deficiencies of technical nature. The
nomination forms of the petitioners stand rejected by the returning
officer for the reason that they have not signed requisite affidavits
appended to their nomination forms.
4.
Mr. Ghatol Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the sole reason which, appears to have weighed with the returning
officer is that affidavits as referable to proviso to Rule 21(3) of Rules of
2014 do not bear signatures of the petitioners, is hyper technical. In
order to support his submission that since defects and deficiencies
creeping in while filling in the nomination form cannot be said to be
substantial. He places reliance on decision in the case of Arun Laxman
Alne Vs. Returning Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer and others reported in
2010(4) Bom. C.R. 214. The decision had been rendered in the context of
the fact that requisite affidavit in the nomination form was kept blank,
however, affidavit in printed format had been available on a stamp
paper of Rs.100/- and all necessary material as appended to annexure-
A had been made available in said format on the stamp paper. It is in
that context it has been ruled that nomination of the petitioner could
not have been rejected on that count. In the present case, fact and
situation is, however, different in the sense that it could not be said
that there had been any affidavit in any other form being available
6 WP-2786.16
along with nomination form and form appended for affidavit has been
left unsigned. It appears to be deficient of requirement under relevant
rules as such, no benefit and assistance can be secured in the present
case from the citation relied upon on behalf of the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel further goes on to submit that having regard to
the spirit underlying decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the
case Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India and another reported
in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 344, with reference to the Representation of
the People Act, 1951, particularly, having regard to the contents as
appearing in paragraph No. 21 of the judgment wherein the Supreme
Court opined that in addition to the standard draft format for reminding
the candidates to file an affidavit as stipulated, another clause might be
inserted for reminding the candidates to fill in the blanks with the
relevant information thereby conveying message that no affidavit with
blank particulars will be entertained. He further submits that having
regard to the contents of said paragraph, it was duty of the returning
Officer to check whatever the information required is furnished at the
time of filing nomination paper. In the present case, according to him,
no opportunity had been given and in the process it was not noticed
that affidavit had not been signed.
6. Mr. S.K. Kadam, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.
3 to 4, however, stiffly opposes the writ petitions. In the first place, he
points out that writ petitions cannot be maintained without arraying the
persons whose nominations are found to be valid. He refers to a
decision of Hon'ble single judge of this court in the case of Vijaysingh
7 WP-2786.16
Krishnarao Parbat Vs. Returning Officer and others reported in 2003(5) Bom C.R. 330
and with reference to paragraph No. 9 of the judgment he submits that
petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of
necessary parties to the proceedings. He further refers to that election
programme has progressed further and elections to the seats of which
candidature is sought under writ petitions, have reached to their logical
end and pursuant to rule 32 of the Rules of 2014, there has been
declaration of results of election of the candidates from those
categories.
7. Mr. Shelke, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
respondents No. 1 and 2 supports the impugned orders contending that
nomination forms being deficient of the mandatory requirements,
affidavits without signatures cannot be said to be affidavits. Having
regard to Rule 21(3) of the Rules of 2014, nominations of the present
petitioners to the categories desired, have been rightly rejected. Writ
Petitions, according him, do not call for any interference, having regard
to the stage where the elections have reached, as has been referred to
by the counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 5.
8. Taking stock of the situation, present cases do not appear to be
fit for exercising discretionary powers in favour of petitioners as there
has already been declaration of results of election in respect of quite a
few seats pursuant to election programme and Rules of 2014. Rejection
of nomination forms of the petitioners whether proper or not can be
subject-matter in appropriate proceedings. So far as other contention
with regard to ground for rejection of nominations being technical in
8 WP-2786.16
nature, prima facie position emerges that there are no requisite
declarations on affidavit in the absence of signatures. In the
circumstances, no fault can be found with returning officer while
rejecting nomination forms of the petitioners. Having regard to that
results of election have already been declared in respect of two seats
for women category and also the symbols in respect of other categories
have been allotted and all other stages in election have reached save
polling of other seats, interference at this stage would not lead to any
fruitful purpose in favour of petitioners. As such, leaving it open for
petitioners to take appropriate remedies as would be available in law
including an election petition, writ petitions stand rejected. Rule stands
discharged.
9. Needless to refer to that all contentions as have been taken in
writ petitions by the parties are kept open to be agitated in appropriate
proceedings and that the reasons given for rejection of present writ
petitions have limited efficacy to the extent of rejection of these writ
petitions and no further. The fori wherever any remedy would be
maintainable and resorted to would decide the proceedings
uninfluenced by observations above.
Sd/-
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )
MTK
***
