Bombay High Court
Shri Dnyandeo S/O Murlidhar ... vs Returning Officer And Tahsildar, ... on 11 October, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp6432.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6432 OF 2017
Shri Dnyandeo S/o. Murlidhar Shinde,
Aged about 23 years, Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o.At Tandali Shevai, Tah. Washim,
Distt. Washim.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
Returning Officer and Tahsildar,
Gram Panchayat Election,
Tandali Shevai, Tah. Washim,
District : Washim.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri S.D.Chande Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Neeraj Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 11, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of
the respondent/ Returning Officer by which his nomination paper is rejected
Judgment 2 wp6432.17.odt
on the ground that though he submitted his nomination form showing his
intention to contest the Gram Panchayat Elections for the seat reserved for
Nomadic Tribe (NT) candidate and though copy of the Caste Validity
Certificate issued by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee was
submitted, the petitioner had not submitted the Caste Certificate.
4. This Court passed an order on 29 th September, 2017 directing
issuance of notice to the respondent and passed an interim order directing
the respondent to provisionally accept the nomination form of the petitioner
and allow him to contest the election for the seat reserved for Nomadic Tribe
candidate.
5. Though the petition was not on board, the learned A.G.P.
mentioned it for urgent hearing and accordingly the petition is listed.
6. The learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P.
have submitted that the petitioner is permitted to contest the election for the
seat reserved for Nomadic Tribe candidate, however, the results of the
election are not declared.
7. It is undisputed that the petitioner had submitted the copy of
Caste Validity Certificate issued by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee along with the nomination form. In my view, the reason given by
Judgment 3 wp6432.17.odt
the Returning Officer for rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner that
the Caste Certificate is not submitted by the petitioner is misconceived. The
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee issues the Caste Validity
Certificate only after it is satisfied that the caste certificate issued by the
competent authority in favour of the concerned person is proper and
justified. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not having the caste
certificate. The object of requiring the candidate seeking to contest the
election for the seat reserved for backward class candidate to produce the
caste certificate and caste validity certificate, is to ascertain that the
candidate belongs to that particular backward class. The petition has
discharged the burden of showing that he belongs to Nomadic Tribe by
producing the caste validity certificate which is more authentic than the caste
certificate to substantiate the caste/ tribe claim.
8. In the facts of the case, following order is passed:
i) The impugned decision of the Returning Officer is
quashed.
ii) The respondent shall consider the petitioner to be validly
nominated candidate for Gram Panchayat Elections held on 7 th
October, 2017 and result of the election be declared
immediately.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances,
the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
