Priyanka Vinayak Ranmale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16 Bom

                                                                925WPST88.21
                                      -1-


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  925 WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 88 OF 2021


          Priyanka Vinayak Ranmale,
          Age. 22 years, Occ. Household,
          R/o. Mirpur, Nimgaon Jali Road,
          Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.                        ...Petitioner.

                  Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra.

 2.       The Collector of Ahmednagar,
          Dist. Ahmednagar.

 3.       Mirpur Village Panchayat Election
          Returning Officer, @ The Tahsildar,
          Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner,
          Dist. Ahmednagar.

 4.       The Election Commission of India,
          New Delhi.

 5.       The Maharashtra State Election Commission,
          Mumbai.

 6.       Parvati Changdeo Dhatrak,
          Age. Major, Occ. Household,
          R/o. Mirpur, Tq. Sangamner,
          Dist. Ahmednagar.                                    ...Respondents.


          Advocate for Petitioner : Mr V.Y. Bhide.
          APP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar.
          Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 : Mr. A.B. Kadethankar.
          Advocate for Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Avinash Khedkar.


                                        CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATED : 04.01.2021

925WPST88.21

Judgment :

Heard.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the

consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of

admission.

3. The petitioner submitted her nomination form for election to

the Gram Panchayat Mirpur, from Ward No. 2. Respondent No. 6

raised an objection to the Returning Officer, on the ground that the

petitioner had not completed the age of 20 years and therefore,

was not qualified for contesting the election. By the impugned

order, the Returning Officer upheld the objection and rejected the

nomination, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, by referring to the

impugned order points out that simply because the age of the

petitioner was appearing as 20 years in the voters list the Returning

Officer has passed the impugned order. He, further, points out that

even a Transfer Certificate issued by a college in which the

petitioner was studying, was produced before the Returning Officer

who prima facie recorded an observation that even going by the

date of birth mentioned on her Transfer Certificate, she was 22

925WPST88.21

years and 7 months old. He would point out that purportedly

relying on the decision in case of Dhondba Adku and another

Versus Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat, AIR 1967 Bombay

232, the Returning Officer has refused to consider the date of birth

mentioned in the Transfer Certificate. The learned Advocate would

submit that there is no law which prohibits the Returning Officer

from independently verifying the aspect of age. The view taken by

him is de hors the provisions of law and is arbitrary and illegal.

5. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 6 referring to

the decision in the case of Dhondba Adku (supra) submits that if at

all, the petitioner wanted to challenge the voters list, she should

have done it at an appropriate time. She is now indirectly seeking

to correct the voters list which is not permissible.

6. The learned Advocate Mr. Kadethankar referring to the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod

Pandurang Bharsakade Versus Returning Officer, Akot, 2003 (4)

Mh.L.J. 359, submits that it is too late to interfere in the process of

election which has already commenced. Today is the date for

allotment of symbols. The clock cannot be set back. The process of

election cannot be stalled in this fashion. He also cites the decision

925WPST88.21

of the Supreme Court in the case of the Election Commission Versus

Shivaji and others, AIR 1988 SC 61, and submits that this court in

exercise of the writ jurisdiction should not assume jurisdiction

which would have a tendency to obstruct or stall the election

process.

7. As far as maintainability of the present petition is concerned,

it is a matter of record that today is the date for withdrawal of

nomination forms and allotment of symbols. There can also be no

dispute that the Supreme Court as well as this Court has taken a

consistent view in the aforementioned cases that the writ

jurisdiction is not to be invoked to stall the election process.

However, in the case of Poonam Rajesh Pawar Versus Returning

Officer, 2017 (4) Mh.L.J. 85 which in turn relies upon the Division

Bench judgment in the case of Sudhakar Misal Versus State of

Maharashtra and others, 2007 (6) ALL MR 773, in which this Court

has marked a distinction between the cases where there is a

challenge to the acceptance of a nomination form and where it is

against rejection of a nomination. The former results in or has a

tendency to result in interfering in the election process but not the

latter. Following these principles laid down by the Division Bench

in the case of Misal (supra) and subsequently followed in the case

925WPST88.21

of Ponam Pawar (supra), in my considered view, the facts and

circumstances of the matter in hand present a peculiar state of

affair where this Court can invoke writ jurisdiction to cause

inclusion of the petitioner in the process of election without

hampering it.

8. As far as factual aspects are concerned, even impugned order

records specific observation of the Returning Officer, that the date

of birth of the petitioner going by the Transfer Certificate presented

by her was 04.05.1998, and she was 22 years and 7 months old. If

such is the case and when the law does not independently require

that the age mentioned in the voters list should be taken into

consideration for eligibility of a candidate to participate in the

election on the ground of age, the impugned order cannot stand

the scrutiny of law.

9. The decision in the case of Dhondiba Adku (supra) was in

respect of a challenge to the voters list which is not a case in the

matter in hand. The petitioner is not seeking correction in the

voters list. Her name already appears in the voters list. It is only a

matter of her age which is being questioned by the respondent No.

6. In view of this peculiar state of affairs the impugned order is

925WPST88.21

liable to be quashed albeit the election process has reached the

stage of allotment of symbols. The Writ Petition deserves to be

allowed.

10. At this juncture, the learned Advocate Mr. Kadethankar for

the State Eelection Commission submits that a representative of the

Upper Tahsildar and Resident Naib Tahsildar are personally present

in the Court while this order is being dictated.

11. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed

and set aside. The Returning Officer shall now treat the petitioner

as a candidate eligible to contest the election. Since the

representative of the Returning Officer is present personally, she

shall act on the basis of the order being dictated in the open Court.

( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

S.P.C.