Gajanan Motiram Dube vs Returning Officer/Tahsildar, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7586 Bom

 Judgment                                            1                                wp6340.17.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO.6340 OF 2017



 Gajanan Motiram Dube,
 Aged about 44 years, Occ.: Agriculturist, 
 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 wp6340.17.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. His

nomination form was rejected by the respondent, who is the Returning

Officer for the elections, on the ground that the petitioner did not submit a

Caste Certificate (Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee, sic).

The respondent appears to be of the view that at the time of submission of

the nomination form, the candidate is required to submit the caste certificate

issued by the competent authority as well as the caste 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 31 st

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

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

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

Judgment 3 wp6340.17.odt

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

the date of filing of the nomination papers, 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 his Validity

Certificate as on the date of filing of the nomination papers, he 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 he is declared elected. Since the petitioner accordingly fulfills

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

Judgment 4 wp6340.17.odt

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 him and allow

him 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..