Bombay High Court
Sunita W/O. Jivan Mahale vs Sangita W/O. Vitthal Bhoyar And ... on 27 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
WP 2110.16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2110 OF 2016
Sunita w/o Jivan Mahale,
Aged about 23 years,
Occupation-Housewife,
R/o. Uklipen, Washim,
Tahsil and District-Washim. .. PETITIONER
.. VERSUS ..
1] Sangita w/o Vitthal Bhoyar,
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation-Housewife,
R/o. Uklipen Washim,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
2] Shobha w/o Nilesh Mahale,
Aged about 26 years,
Occupation-Housewife,
R/o. Uklipen Washim,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
3] S.R. Kulkarni,
Occupation-Junior Engineer,
Returning Officer for the Election
of Gram Panchayat, Ukali Pen,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
4] V.H. Pradhan Junior Assistance,
Panchayat Samiti, Washim as
Assistant Returning Officer of the
Election Gram Panchayat Ukali Pen,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
5] Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Washim,
Tahsil and District-Washim.
6] Secretary, Gram Panchayat Office,
Ukalipen, Tahsil and District-Washim.
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:50:25 :::
WP 2110.16.odt 2
7] Kundlik s/o Laxman Jaitade,
Aged about Major,
Occupation-Farmer,
R/o. Uklipen, Tahsil and
District-Washim.
8] Pralhad s/o Vyankatrao Ambhore,
Aged about Major,
Occupation-Farmer,
R/o. Uklipen, Tahsil and District
Washim. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate a/w Shri R.D. Karode,
Advocate for petitioner,
Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1,
Shri V.P. Gangane, AGP for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : JULY 27, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for parties.
2] This petition takes an exception to the order dated
22.2.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Washim dismissing Election Petition No.2/2015 and
upholding election of respondent no.1, as legal and valid.
3] It was the case of petitioner that respondent no.1
was contesting Gram Panchayat elections and filed her
nomination form from general category candidate. The list
of validly nominated candidates was published and in the
said list her name was shown as a candidate from general
category. It is submitted that at the time of allotment of
symbol, Election Officer, in connivance with the panel to
which she belonged, had shown her candidature from the
seat reserved for general (woman) and she got elected.
4] Petitioner challenged election of respondent no.1
in Election Petition No.2/2015 before the Civil Court. Vide
impugned order dated 22.2.2016, petition was dismissed.
The said order of dismissal of Election Petition is the subject
matter of present petition.
5] The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
documents submitted by respondents clearly indicate that
she was a candidate from general category. Learned
counsel points out that respondent no.1, in connivance with
the panel, could obtain symbol showing her candidate
belonging to general (woman) category. According to
learned counsel, impugned order passed by the trial court is
against the documents submitted by respondents and
petitioner, who was the candidate next to respondent no.1,
is to be declared as elected by setting aside the election of
respondent no.1.
6] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1
submits that candidates contesting elections of Gram
Panchayat were required to file nomination forms manually
and also by on line mode. It is submitted that for the first
time such procedure was introduced. Looking to the
difficulties being faced, State Election Commission issued a
communication dated 20.7.2015 to the Collectors of various
districts including Washim and informed that because of
some mistakes mentioned in the communication in filling up
the forms on line, candidates shall not be declared invalid at
the stage of acceptance and scrutiny of the forms.
Respondent no.1 had also filed nomination form on-line and
manually along with the supporting documents. In the form
manually submitted, respondent no.1 mentioned Ward No.1
from the category general (woman). In on-line form also,
tick mark was made before general (woman) category.
Refuting the allegations of collusion between Election Officer
and respondent no.1, she submitted that while filling up on-
line nomination form, inadvertently Ward No.1A was filled in.
According to her, it was just a technical error and that could
have been ignored in view of the communication dated
20.7.2015.
7] Another submission on behalf of respondent no.1
is that during allotment of symbol, ward number and
category of seat reserved was rightly mentioned by election
officer in front of the name of respondent no.1, though an
error had occurred in the list of validly nominated
candidates. Respondent no.1 noticed the error in the list on
22.7.2015 and immediately she brought the same to the
notice of Election Officer with a request to correct the same.
The mistake, in the list of validly nominated candidates, was
accordingly corrected and nothing was wrong as the said
error was otherwise required to be ignored in view of the
communication dated 20.7.2015 issued by the Collector.
In this background, respondent no.1 prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
8] This court, vide order dated 3.7.2017, directed
respondent no.5 to produce the original record. In
pursuance to the direction, learned A.G.P. has produced the
record. It appears from an undertaking (gehi=) dated
17.7.2015 submitted by respondent no.1 that her
candidature was from Ward No.1 for the reserved category
general (woman). The learned Civil Judge, on appreciation
of documents rightly observed that error committed by
Returning Officer is protected by sub-section 7 of section 15
of the Mumbai Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and petitioner
could not prove that respondent no.1 filed her nomination
for general category and not for the category general
(woman).
9] This court, on overall scrutiny of the material
placed on record, does not find any perversity or illegality in
the impugned order. As such no interference is warranted in
writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition No.2110 of 2016 is dismissed.
Rule is discharged. No costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
