Bombay High Court
Sau. Rekha W/O Madhukar Mohije vs The Returning Officer Of The Gram ... on 17 November, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3992.2015.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 3992/2015
1] Sau. Rekha W/o Madhukar Mohije,
Aged 38 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Prabhag No. 4, At PO: Patanbori,
Tq. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal
..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] The Returning Officer of the
Gram Panchayat Election 2015 of
Patanbori Tq. Kelapur,
Dist. Yavatmal
2] Parvati Mahadeo Wahile,
Aged- Major, Occ. Household,
R/o Prabhag No. 4, At PO: Patanbori,
Tq. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal
3] Sunita Santosh Dhoke,
Aged- Major, Occ. Household,
R/o Prabhag No. 4, At PO: Patanbori,
Tq. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal
... RESPONDENT
S
=====================================
Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the petitioner
Miss K.R. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent no. 1
=====================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
DATED :- 17 November
th
,
201
7
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 00:44:08 :::
2 wp3992.2015.odt
2] The petitioner submitted her nomination form offering her
candidature at the election of the Gram Panchayat scheduled on
25/06/2015. The petitioner intended to contest election from Prabhag
4-B reserved for the backward class candidates. The nomination form
of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner
had not submitted the caste certificate/caste validity certificate
alongwith the nomination form. Being aggrieved by the order passed by
the returning officer rejecting the nomination form, the petitioner has
filed this writ petition.
3] According to the petitioner, she had submitted caste
certificate alongwith her nomination form, however, it appears that it is
mischievously removed. To support the contention, the learned
advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there is interpolation in
the order, that her nomination form was initially accepted, however,
subsequently it is rejected. It is submitted that initially, the returning
officer had remarked "lnj pk vtZ gk oS/k Bjfo.;kr ;sr vkgs" but subseqently,
"v" came to be added before "oS/k". It is further submitted that the
petitioner again submitted the copy of the caste certificate at the time of
scrutiny, alongwith the application dated 13/07/2015 which was
received by the returning officer at 4:45 p.m.
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 00:44:08 :::
3 wp3992.2015.odt
4] Though the returning officer has denied the allegations
made by the petitioner about interpolation in the impugned order, there
is no denial to the fact that the copy of the caste certificate is submitted
by the petitioner on 13/07/2015 at 4:45 p.m. There is an endorsement
at the foot of the application submitted by the petitioner on
13/07/2015 put up by the returning officer acknowledging the receipt
of the application at 4:45 p.m. and the application contains the
averment that caste certificate was submitted. It is undisputed that the
scrutiny of the nomination forms was fixed on 13/07/2015 and was
required to be conducted till 5:00 p.m.
5] As the petitioner has proved that she had submitted the
copy of the caste certificate at the time of scrutiny, in my view, the
nomination form of the petitioner could not have been rejected.
6] By an interim order passed by this Court on 15/07/2015, it
was directed that the nomination form of the petitioner be provisionally
accepted and the name of the petitioner be included in the list of validly
nominated candidates and symbol be allotted to her. This Court ordered
that the result of the elections should not be declared until further
orders. The advocate for the petitioner and the AGP have submitted that
the petitioner is permitted to contest the elections, however, the result
of the elections is not declared.
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 00:44:08 :::
4 wp3992.2015.odt
In view of the above facts, the following order is passed:-
O R D E R
1] The impugned order of the returning
officer rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner
is quashed.
2] The returning officer shall consider that the
nomination form of the petitioner is accepted.
3] The result of the election be declared
immediately.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
A n s a r i
