Sau. Pushpa Baliram Kale vs Returning Officer/Tahsildar, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7585 Bom

 Judgment                                            1                                wp6339.17.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO.6339 OF 2017



 Sau. Pushpa Baliram Kale,
 aged about 48 years, Occupation : Housewife, 
 R/o. At Post Bhatumra, Tahsil : Washim,
 District : Washim.  
                                                                         ....  PETITIONER.

                                      //  VERSUS //

 Returning Officer/ Tahsildar, 
 Gram Panchayat Election, 
 Tahsil Office, Washim, 
 District : Washim. 

                                                    .... RESPONDENT
                                                                     .
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri S.D.Chande, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Ms M.A.Barabde, A.G.P. for Respondent. 
 ___________________________________________________________________


                              CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

DATED : AUGUST 26, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for

the respondent.

2. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable forthwith. Learned

A.G.P. waives notice on behalf of the respondent.

Judgment 2 wp6339.17.odt

3. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing

by consent of the parties.

4. The subject matter of controversy in the present petition is rejection of

the petitioner's nomination form for election to the post of member of Gram

Panchayat, Bhatumra, Tahsil and District : Washim. The petitioner has

applied for the seat reserved for Other Backward Classes. Her nomination

form was rejected by the respondent, who is Returning Officer for the

elections, on the ground that the petitioner only submitted a Caste Certificate

issued by the competent authority and not Validity Certificate issued by the

Scrutiny Committee. The respondent held that the petitioner merely

submitted a copy of receipt of payment made to the Scrutiny Committee for

the Caste Validity Certificate. The respondent appears to be of the view that

at the time of submission of nomination form, the candidate is required to

submit true copies of both the caste certificates issued by the competent

authority as well as validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee.

5. Section 10-1A inserted by the Maharashtra Act No.37 of 2006 in the

Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and as amended by the

Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Mah. Act No.10 of

2016) on 31/03/2016, requires that in the case of any general or by-election

for which the last date of filing of nomination falls on or before the 31 st

December, 2017, in accordance with the election programme declared by the

Judgment 3 wp6339.17.odt

State Election Commission, a person who has applied to the Scrutiny

Committee for verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing of

the nomination papers but who has not received the Validity Certificate on

the date of filing of the nomination paper, shall submit, along with the

nomination papers, a true copy of the application preferred by him to the

Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the Validity Certificate or any other proof

of having made such application to the Scrutiny Committee and an

undertaking that he shall submit, within a period of six months from the date

on which he is declared elected, the Validity Certificate issued by the

Scrutiny Committee. By this proviso, the original requirement forming part

of the main provision in Section 10-1A of the Act, which requires submission

of both Caste Certificate and the Validity Certificate along with nomination

papers has been varied in the cases provided for therein. The petitioner has

applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste certificate.

There is proof on record that such application is submitted before the date of

filing of nomination papers. Since the petitioner has not received her

Validity Certificate as on the date of filing of the nomination papers, she has

submitted proof of having made an application to the Scrutiny Committee for

issuance of such Validity Certificate and also submitted an undertaking in the

prescribed format for submission of the Validity Certificate that may be

issued by the Scrutiny Committee, within a period of six months from the

date on which she is declared elected. Since the petitioner accordingly

fulfills all the requirements of Section 10-1A of the Act, her nomination form

Judgment 4 wp6339.17.odt

could not have been rejected by the respondent. In view of the amended

law, noted above, the impugned order of rejection passed by the respondent

cannot be sustained and will have to be interfered with in the writ

jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting

aside the impugned order of rejection passed by the respondent on 25 th

September, 2017 and directing the respondent to accept the nomination form

of the petitioner on the basis of the documents submitted by her and allow

her to participate in and contest the elections.

7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to

costs.

8. All the parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

JUDGE

RRaut..