Shri Prakash Motiramji Gathe vs Returning Officer/Revenue ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8226 Bom

                                                                                  1                                                                wp6595.17

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.6595/2017

Shri Prakash Motiramji Gathe,
aged about 43 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist, 
R/o Wavruli, Po. Mangruli, Tq. Warud, 
Distt. Amravati.                                                                                                                                                ..Petitioner.

                          ..Vs..

1.         Returning Officer / Revenue Inspector,
           Gat Gram Panchayat, Pimpalkhuta-Wavruli, 
           Tah. Warud, Distt. Amravati. 

2.         Shri Arun Fattuji Gathe,
           aged about 55 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist, 
           R/o Wavruli, Po. Mangruli, Tq. Warud, 
           Distt. Amravati. 

2A. The State Election Commission, 
    through its Commissioner, Mumbai.                                                                                                              ..Respondents.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
           Shri A.P. Thakre, Advocate for the petitioner. 
           Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
           Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent No.2A.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


                                                                 CORAM :  Z.A. HAQ, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     13.10.2017.



ORAL JUDGMENT

1.                        Heard.



2.                        Rule.   Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Returning Officer

2 wp6595.17

by which his nomination form is rejected on the ground that the petitioner has

not submitted the undertaking, as per Schedule I annexed to the nomination

form, to submit the account of expenses made daily till 2 p.m. on the next day

and to submit the account of expenses made for the elections within 30 days of

the declaration of results.

4. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that giving of

undertaking in Schedule I of the nomination form is directory and not

mandatory and even if such an undertaking is not given, the candidate is under

statutory obligation to furnish the account of expenses within stipulated time

and, therefore, the nomination form of the petitioner could not have been

rejected on the ground that the undertaking as per Schedule I of the

nomination form is not given.

5. Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for

short "Act of 1958") lays down that if the State Election Commission is satisfied

that the person has failed to lodge the account of election expenses within time

and in the manner required by the State Election Commission and there is no

good reason or justification for such failure, the State Election Commission may

declare him to be disqualified by an order published in the official gazette.

Considering this proposition, I find that there is substance in the submission

made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Even if the candidate does

3 wp6595.17

not give undertaking as required by Schedule I of the nomination form, he /

she will have to suffer the consequences laid down in Section 14B of the Act of

1958.

6. In view of the above, I find that the impugned decision is not

sustainable and has to be quashed and set aside.

7. This Court passed an interim order on 6th October, 2017 directing

the Returning Officer to provisionally accept the nomination form of the

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

Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. have submitted that the

nomination form of the petitioner is provisionally accepted.

8. Hence, the following order:

The impugned decision of the Returning Officer is quashed.

The respondent No.1 / Returning Officer is directed to treat the

petitioner as validly nominated candidate for the election of Grampanchayat

Pimpalkhuta to be held on 16th October, 2017.

Rule made absolute in the above terms.

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.