Bombay High Court
Sau. Uma Raosaheb Wanjari vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 9 October, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 WP6628.2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.6628/2017
Sau. Uma Raosaheb Wanjari,
Aged about 49 years,
Occ. Housewife,
R/o Village Bailmarkheda,
Tah. Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati
..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Amravati,
Dist. Amravati
2. The Returning Officer/Tahsildar
for the election of member of
Village Bailmarkheda, Tah.
Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati
... RESPONDENTS
=====================================
Shri A.D. Girdekar, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri A.A. Madiwale, AGP for the respondents.
=====================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
DATED :- 09 th October, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
1] The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent
no. 2/returning officer by which the nomination form of the petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:01:21 :::
2 WP6628.2017.odt
is rejected as he has not singed the Part-II of the declaration of the
nomination form.
On the third page of the nomination form, which is a
printed format made available to the candidates, the candidate has to
sign at two places below two declaration, first declaration being about
the age of the candidate alongwith other details as mentioned therein
and the second declaration being about the caste to which he belongs.
The petitioner has put signature below the declaration regarding her
caste, which is on the same page as the declaration regarding the age of
the petitioner below which the petitioner has not signed. The petitioner
has put signature at all other places in the nomination form. The facts
on record show that it is only because of inadvertence that the
petitioner has not put her signature below the declaration of Part-II of
the nomination form. The impugned order does not show that inspite of
grant of opportunity at the time of scrutiny, the petitioner has not put
her signature at the place left blank by her while submitting the
nomination form.
2] In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the defect is of
substantial character which necessitates the rejection of the nomination
form of the petitioner. It is not the case of the returning officer that
someone has objected to the acceptance of the nomination form of the
petitioner alleging that the petitioner is not otherwise fulfilling the
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:01:21 :::
3 WP6628.2017.odt
eligibility criteria as required under the Act and regarding which she is
required to submit the declaration in Part-II of the nomination form for
the elections of the Gram Panchayat. Hence, the followign order is
passed:-
O R D E R
(i) The decision of the returning officer is quashed.
(ii) The returning officer is directed to accept the
nomination form of the petitioner for the elections of the
Gram Panchayat, Village Bailmarkheda, Tah. Bhatkuli, Dist.
Amravati scheduled on 16th October, 2017.
The respondent no. 2-the returning officer shall 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.
The learned AGP shall intimate this judgment to the
returning officer immediately. The returning officer shall act on the
copy of this judgment, authenticated by Court Shirastedar.
Judgment dictated in Court at 5.05 pm.
JUDGE
Ansari
