Smt. Sumita W/O Prakash Chakole vs Returning Officer Cum Tahsildar, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8177 Bom

 Judgment                                               1                                wp6539.17.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 6539  OF 2017


 Smt. Sumitra W/o. Prakash Chakole,
 Aged 50 years, Occu.: Household,
 R/o. Nilaj, Po. Salwa, Tahsil : Parseoni,
 District : Nagpur - 440 401.
                                                                            ....  PETITIONER.

                                         //  VERSUS //


 The Returning Officer Cum Tahsildar,
 Parseoni, Tahsil and District : Parseoni.

                                                                           .... RESPONDENT
                                                                                         .

  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri G.D.Asole, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Ms M.A.Barabde, A.G.P. for Respondent. 
 ___________________________________________________________________

                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Returning

Officer by which the nomination form of the petitioner for the election of

Grampanchayat scheduled on 16th October, 2017 is rejected. The nomination

Judgment 2 wp6539.17.odt

form of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that though she submitted

nomination form for contesting the election from Prabhag reserved for

woman belonging to backward class, she has neither submitted caste

certificate nor caste validity certificate along with the nomination form.

4. According to the petitioner, the photocopies of caste certificate

and caste validity certificate were submitted along with the nomination form

and at the time of scrutiny the originals were also produced. The petitioner

has placed on record (at Annexure C- Page 20 of the petition) copy of caste

validity certificate issued by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee on 30th January, 2008.

5. The respondent-Returning Officer refuted the claim of the

petitioner that she has submitted the photocopies of the caste certificate and

caste validity certificate along with the nomination form. It is further

submitted that at the time of scrutiny also neither the petitioner nor any

authorized representative of the petitioner were present to remove the

deficiencies.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that

though the submission made on behalf of the respondent-Returning Officer is

not correct, even, for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the

photocopies of the certificates were not submitted along with the nomination

Judgment 3 wp6539.17.odt

form, the Returning Officer could not have rejected the nomination form on

that ground as per the proposition laid down in the judgment given by the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anant Janardan Patil Vs. State of

Maharashtra & oth., reported in AIR 2002 Bom. 87.

7. The petitioner and the respondent-Returning Officer have

joined on an issue which requires adjudication of disputed question. In

normal course, this Court would not undertake the exercise of resolving such

an issue in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, however, in the facts of the

present case, I find that the petitioner is having caste validity certificate

issued by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee on 30 th

January, 2008 which substantiates that the petitioner belongs to "Teli"

community which is recognized as backward class community in the State of

Maharashtra and the respondent-Returning Officer has not been able to point

out that the petitioner gained anything by not submitting the photocopies of

the caste certificate and caste validity certificate along with the nomination

form. The fact being that the petitioner has substantiated her claim that she

belongs to backward class community and she is having caste certificate and

caste validity certificate to that effect and considering the proposition laid

down in the judgment given in the case of Charles K. Skaria Vs. C. Mathew,

reported in 1980(2) SCC 752, the claim of the petitioner in this petition is

required to be accepted and the impugned decision rejecting the nomination

form of the petitioner being unsustainable, has to be set aside.

Judgment 4 wp6539.17.odt

8. This Court passed an interim order on 5 th October, 2017

directing the respondent to provisionally accept the nomination form of the

petitioner and to take all consequential necessary steps in the matter. The

learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. have submitted

that the nomination form of the petitioner is accepted and she is shown as

validly nominated candidate for the elections of Gram Panchayat to be held

on 16th October, 2017.

9. In view of the above, following order is passed:

i) The impugned decision of the Returning Officer is

quashed.

ii) The respondent-Returning Officer is directed to consider

the petitioner as validly nominated candidate for the election of

Gram Panchayat, Nilaj, Tahsil and District : Nagpur to be held

on 16th October, 2017 and to take all consequential necessary

steps in the matter.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances,

the parties to bear their own costs.

The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment.

JUDGE

RRaut..