Bombay High Court
Ramkrushna Gendlal Pandhare And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 13 December, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 2.wp.5246.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5246 OF 2021
Ramkrushna Gendlal Pandhare and others
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through District Collector, Gondia and others
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Akshaya Sudame, Advocate for petitioners.
Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 13/12/2021
Heard Mr. Akshaya Sudame, learned counsel
for the petitioners. The contention is that the respondent
No.3 belongs to the Gowari Community, which is
declared as a 'Special Backward Class', and not as a
'Schedule Tribe'. It is contended that judgment of the
learned Division Bench of this Court, in Adim Gowari
Samaj Vikas Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 (5)
Mh. L.J. 468, which held 'Gowari' to be a part of the
Gond Gowari Schedule Tribe, has been set aside by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
Vs. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone, 2020 SCC OnLine 1040,
by holding that 'Gowari' is not included in 'Gond Gowari'
Schedule Tribe. It is therefore, contended that the
acceptance of the nomination of the respondent No.3,
who belongs to the Gowari Special Backward Class, on
which certificate he had contested elections held on
16.10.2017, cannot be now considered to be a candidate,
duly complying with the requirement of contesting for
(2) 2.wp.5246.2021
the seat, which is reserved for the 'Schedule Tribe'. The
objection raised to his nomination has been accepted by
the Election Officer by rejecting his nomination, appeal
against which has been allowed by the learned District
Judge by judgment dated 09.12.2021, which is impugned
here.
However, considering the fact that the
election process has already commenced and today being
the date fixed for allotment of symbols, I do not consider
it appropriate to interfere in the election process, which
not only has commenced, but is well under way.
The petition is therefore, on this limited
ground dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioners to
raise all grounds contained herein in appropriate
proceedings, after the election is over. No costs.
JUDGE
Later on, Mr. Sudame, learned counsel for
the petitioners, when I was rising for the day, appeared
and pointed out that the respondent No.2 had postponed
the date for withdrawal of nomination and allotment of
symbols to 15.12.2021, in view of the pendency of
appeal before the learned District Judge. First of all, such
a course could not have been adopted by the respondent
No.2, the Returning Officer, as it is not permissible for
him to change/vary the election programme once
(3) 2.wp.5246.2021
published. That apart, the appeal before the learned
District Judge already stood decided on 09.12.2021 and
it appears, that the learned respondent No.2 was clearly
belabouring under a misconception. The postponement,
thus would not according to me permit interference in
the election process once commenced.
JUDGE
Sarkate
Digitally signed byANANT R
SARKATE
Signing Date:13.12.2021
21:49
