Bombay High Court
Sunita Janardhan Sidam vs Returning Officer, Gram ... on 6 October, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp6589.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6589 OF 2017
Sunita Janardhan Sidam,
Age 59 years, Occu.: Housewife,
R/o.Akapur, Post : Chemuda,
Tq. Mul, Distt. Chandrapur.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
The Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat
Akapur, Tq. Mul, Distt. Chandrapur.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.V.Band, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Neeraj Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The elections of Gram Panchayat, Akapur are scheduled for 16th
October, 2017. From Ward No.3, three candidates are to be elected. Out of
the three seats, one seat is reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, one seat
Judgment 2 wp6589.17.odt
is reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) and one seat is for
General(Woman). The petitioner submitted her nomination form expressing
her intention to contest for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman).
However, the Returning Officer has accepted the form of the petitioner
showing her as a candidate for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe
candidate. The petitioner being aggrieved by this decision of the Returning
Officer has approached this Court.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out from
the copy of the nomination form of the petitioner the details which show
beyond doubt that the petitioner wants to contest the election for the seat
reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman). Against the column as to whether
the election is for the seat reserved for woman, the petitioner has marked
"Yes".
5. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the petitioner is treated as
candidate for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate as in column
No.1 of the nomination form the petitioner has stated that she has submitted
her nomination form for seat "av" of Ward No.3, which is reserved for
Scheduled Tribe candidate and if the petitioner intended to contest the
election for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman), the petitioner
should have stated in column 1 that she wants to contest the election for the
seat "c" of Ward No.3.
Judgment 3 wp6589.17.odt
6. The advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is no such
declaration/ proclamation that seat "av" is for Scheduled Tribe candidate and
seat "c" is reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman). It is submitted that the
State Election Commission has issued guidelines clarifying that there is no
sub-classification or specification of the wards as "av" "c" "d". On this, the
learned A.G.P. has taken instructions from the Returning Officer and has
submitted that the petitioner is right in saying that there is no sub-
classification or specification of ward as "av" "c" "d".
7. Considering the details as given by the petitioner in the nomination
form it is clear that the petitioner has offered her candidature for the seat
reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman). The decision of the Returning
Officer to accept her nomination form for the seat reserved for Scheduled
Tribe candidate is not in consonance with the details given by the petitioner
in her nomination form.
8. Hence, the following order.:
i) The Returning Officer is directed to accept the
nomination form of the petitioner for the seat reserved for
Scheduled Tribe (Woman) and take all consequential necessary
steps in the matter.
Judgment 4 wp6589.17.odt
ii) The decision of the Returning Officer is modified
accordingly.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances,
the parties to bear their own costs.
The learned A.G.P. shall communicate this order to the
respondent -Returning Officer immediately.
Dictated in open Court at 3.40 p.m.
JUDGE
RRaut..
