Shubhash Kishan Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6298 Bom

                                         1
                                                             WRIT PETITION.9731 OF 2016.odt


               THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                                           
                      APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION




                                                   
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 9731 OF 2016

    Subhash S/o Kishan Gaikwad,




                                                  
    Age 30 years, Occ. Agril,
    R/o Somthana, Tq. Badnapur, 
    District Jalna.                                     ... PETITIONER




                                       
                   V E R S U S


    1)
                              
           The State of Maharashtra,
           Through Secretary,
                             
           Co-operative and Textile Department
           Maharashtra State Mantralaya, Mumbai.
           (Copy tobe served on Government
            Pleader High court of Bombay
      

            Bench at Aurangabad)
   



    2)     The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society
           Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.





    3)     Returning Officer,
           Somthana VIvdh Karyakari Seva Sahakari
           Sanstha Ltd. Somthana. Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.


    4)     Somthana VIvdh Karyakari Seva Sahakari





           Sanstha Ltd. Somthana,
           Through Secretary.


    5)     Sherkar Sahebrao Kishanrao
           Age: Major, Occ: Agri,
           R/o Khadakvadi
           Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.                   ... RESPONDENTS




     ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:39:15 :::
                                             2
                                                                WRIT PETITION.9731 OF 2016.odt


                                        ...
    Mr. G. R. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner.




                                                                              
    Mr. A. P. Basarkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
    Mr. S. K. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.3




                                                      
    Mr. P. A. Bhosle, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
                                        ...




                                                     
                                             CORAM  : T. V. NALAWADE, J.
                                             DATE      : 24th October, 2016.


    JUDGMENT:  

.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard

both the sides for final disposal.

2 The proceedings is filed to challenge the order made by

the learned Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society by which the

appeal filed by the Respondent Sherkar is allowed and direction is

given to the Returning Officer to accept his nomination. The

nomination of the Respondent was rejected by the Returning Officer

as there was no copy of caste certificate alongwith nomination.

Respondent Sherkar wants to contest the election as a candidate

from reserved category.

3 In the election to Respondent Somthana Vividh Karyakari

WRIT PETITION.9731 OF 2016.odt

Sevak Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Badnapur, District Jalna, the

nomination forms were to be filed from 30th August, 2016 to 3rd

September, 2016. On 6th September, 2016, scrutiny was to be done

and on 7th September, 2016, the list of candidates who were eligible to

contest the election, was to be published. The present Petitioner took

objection to the nomination form of Respondent by contending that

the caste certificate produced alongwith nomination form was not of

the candidate, Respondent. Xerox copy of caste certificate showing

that it was of Sherkar Sahebrao was produced with nomination form.

It was contended that it was not the xerox copy issued to Sherkar

Sahebrao, but it was a copy of caste certificate issued to Sherkar

Rajendra Sahebrao, son of the Respondent. In view of the objection,

a direction was given by the Returning Officer to the Respondent to

produce the original caste certificate. The Respondent could not

produce the original caste certificate and so his nomination form was

rejected.

4 In the appeal, the Respondent contended that he was

ready to produce the original caste certificate and then he produced

the caste certificate issued to him on 9th September, 2016. This is

WRIT PETITION.9731 OF 2016.odt

different caste certificate and it is not the original caste certificate of

which xerox copy was produced alongwith nomination form. The last

date for filing the nomination was 3rd September, 2016 and the caste

certificate was obtained on 9th September, 2016. This circumstance is

ignored by the learned Assistant Registrar and the appeal is allowed.

The leaned counsel for the Respondent took this Court though the

relevant provisions including Rules 20 and 21. He took this Court

through From E-5. The provisions of section 73-B of the Maharashtra

Co-operative Societies Act show that at the time of filing of nomination

papers, the candidate must produce xerox copy of the caste certificate

and he needs to file declaration also. Form E-5 shows that in the

declaration itself, it is mentioned that alongwith nomination form the

candidate is producing the copy of caste certificate. The learned

counsel for Respondent Sherkar submitted that only declaration was

sufficient. This proposition is not acceptable in view of the aforesaid

provisions and the form.

5 Thus, on the date of filing of nomination, the Respondent

was not having caste certificate and he had attempted to use copy of

caste certificate issued to his son. In view of this circumstance, this

WRIT PETITION.9731 OF 2016.odt

Court holds that the Returning Officer had not committed any error in

rejecting the nomination. As the learned Assistant Registrar has

committed an error in setting aside the order of the Returning Officer,

this Court holds that interference is necessary in the order made by

the learned Assistant Registrar. In the result, the petition is allowed.

The order made by the learned Assistant Registrar, Co-operative

Societies, Badnapur in Appeal No.461 of 2016 is hereby set aside.

The order made by the Returning Officer is restored.

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

ndm