Sau. Jayashri W/O Arvindrao Nikam vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7845 Bom

 Judgment                                            1                                wp6533.17.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 6533  OF 2017


 Sau. Jayshri W/o. Arvindrao Nikam,
 Aged about 33 years, Occu.: Housewife,
 R/o.village Wandali, Tah. Warud, 
 District : Amravati.  

                                                                         ....  PETITIONER.

                                      //  VERSUS //


 1. The State of Maharashtra, 
    through Collector, Amravati,
    District : Amravati. 

 2. The Returning Officer/ Tahsildar
    for the election of member of 
    village Wandali, Tah. Warud, 
    District : Amravati. 

 3. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat
    Wandali, Tahsil : Warud, 
    District : Amravati. 
                                                                        .... RESPONDENT
                                                                                      .

  ___________________________________________________________________
 Mrs. Pallavi Mahashabde, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Ms M.A.Barabde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 
 ___________________________________________________________________

                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 05, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

Judgment 2 wp6533.17.odt

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed on record an

affidavit stating that the respondent No.3-Secretary, Gram Panchayat is

served by private notice. Even otherwise, the respondent No.3-Secretary,

Gram Panchayat is a formal party and is not directly connected with the lis.

4. The petitioner submitted her nomination form for elections of

the Gram Panchayat scheduled on 16th October, 2017. The nomination form

is rejected on the ground that though a toilet is constructed in the house

where the petitioner is residing, it is not in use. Apparently, the Returning

Officer relied on the subsequent part of the provisions of Section 14(1)(j-5)

of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

5. The advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the certificate

issued by Gram Sevak/Village Development Officer on 25 th September, 2017

to the effect that the petitioner is residing in the house owned by her, a toilet

is constructed in the house and the toilet is in regular use. The grievance of

the petitioner is that her nomination form is illegally rejected, without there

being any justification.

6. The learned A.G.P., though supported the impugned decision,

could not point out anything to show that the claim made by the petitioner is

Judgment 3 wp6533.17.odt

not correct and that the certificate dated 25 th September, 2017, referred

above, is not reliable.

7. Considering the facts of the case, I find that the impugned

decision of the Returning Officer is unsustainable.

8. Hence, the following order :

                   i)               The impugned decision is quashed.

                   ii)              Respondent No.2-Returning Officer is directed to

accept the nomination form of the petitioner and to take all

consequential necessary steps in the matter.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

9. This judgment is dictated in Court at 11.55 a.m. The

respondent No.2 shall act on authenticated copy of this judgment. The

learned A.G.P. shall communicate this judgment to the respondent No.2-

Returning Officer immediately.

JUDGE

RRaut..