Bombay High Court
Ganesh S/O Shamrao Chaudhari vs The Collector, Washim And Others on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 wp 13-2021 & 15-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 13 of 2021
Ganesh s/o Shamrao Chaudhari Vs. The Collector, Washim and others
WITH
Writ Petition No. 15 of 2021
Bhagyashree w/o Bhagwat Chaudhari Vs. The Collector, Washim 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. N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. A. R. Chutake, AGP for the respondents.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : JANUARY 04, 2021
In these Petitions, this Court had issued
notice on 01/01/2021, returnable today.
2. The notice was made returnable today due
to urgency in the matter, as there is to be allotment of
election symbol as per the election programme for the
election to the grampanchayat Pardi Takmore Tah. and
Dist. Washim.
2 wp 13-2021 & 15-2021.odt
3. In these Petitions, the petitioners had
submitted nomination forms in two categories for
election to the said grampanchayat. In Writ Petition
No. 13/2021, the petitioner had submitted nomination
form from backward class citizen category and another
nomination form for general male category for Ward
No.3 of the aforesaid grampanchayat. Similarly in Writ
Petition No. 15/2021, the petitioner therein had
submitted a nomination form under backward class
citizen category - Women and another nomination
form for general category - Women pertaining to Ward
No.2 of the aforesaid grampanchayat.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that as per
the existing position of law, they were entitled to retain
their nomination forms from either of the two
categories in which they had filled their forms. The
petitioner in W.P. No.13/2021, desired to retain his
nomination form for the backward class citizen
category and to withdraw the nomination form for
general category male, while the petitioner in W.P.
No.15/2021, desired to retain her nomination form in
the backward class citizen category - Women and to
withdraw her nomination form in the category general
category - Women.
5. But, by the impugned order, the respondent
No.3 has held that the nomination forms of the
petitioners shall be considered only from the general
3 wp 13-2021 & 15-2021.odt
category and their nomination forms in the backward
class citizen category shall be ignored.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that this action on the part of the
respondent No.3 - Returning Officer is in the teeth of
Rule 13 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Election
Rules, 1959 and the position of law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhakar
s/o Vitthal Misal Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2007(6) ALL M.R. 773.
7. In response, the learned AGP appeared on
behalf of the respondents and submitted that the facts
of the present case demonstrated that no error was
committed by the respondent No.3 in taking the
impugned action, for the reason that such action was in
consonance with Notification dated 13/11/2007,
issued by the State Election Commission of
Maharashtra. By inviting attention to the relevant
portion of the said Notification, it is submitted by the
learned AGP that the petitioners before this Court,
ought to have given written communication stating the
option that they desired to exercise between the two
nomination forms and that this was to be done by 3:00
P.M. on the last date of filing of the nomination papers.
It was submitted that as per the election programme,
the last date for submission of nomination papers was
30/12/2020 and that admittedly the petitioners failed
4 wp 13-2021 & 15-2021.odt
to indicate their options by 3:00 P.M. on such date.
Therefore, according to the learned AGP no fault can
be found with the impugned action of the respondent
No.3, particularly in the context that admittedly both
the petitioners before this Court had submitted their
nomination forms for the general category first in the
point of time.
8. In response, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that on the face of it, a reading of
the said Notification dated 13/11/2007, would show
that it was in the teeth of Rule 13 of the aforesaid
Rules. It was emphasized that under the said Rule, the
petitioners could exercise their options till the last date
of the withdrawal of nomination papers, which as per
the election programme in the present case is upto
04/01/2021. On this basis, it was submitted that the
said Notification was unsustainable as being violative
of Rule 13 of the said Rules. It was submitted that in
any case the said Notification was never brought to the
notice of the petitioners and that even in the election
programme it was not specified that last date for
exercising the option would be 30/12/2020.
9. Having perused the Writ Petition and the
documents filed therewith, as also the aforesaid
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Sudhakar s/o Vitthal Misal Vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra) and the Notification dated
5 wp 13-2021 & 15-2021.odt
13/11/2007, issued by the State Election Commission,
this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have
made out prima facie case in their favour.
10. It prima facie appears that the aforesaid
Notification is in the teeth of Rule 13 of the aforesaid
Rule and, therefore, the petitioners deserve grant of
interim relief in their favour.
11. Hence, list these Writ Petitions for final
disposal, returnable in four weeks.
12. In the meanwhile, there shall be interim
relief in terms of prayer clause (d) in both the Writ
Petitions, subject to result of the Writ Petitions.
13. Considering the urgency of the matters, the
learned AGP is requested to communicate this order to
the respondent - Returning Officer immediately.
14. Upon this request being made, the learned
AGP pointed out that the respondent - Returning
Officer is himself present in the Court and that he has
taken note of the order passed in these Writ Petitions.
JUDGE
MP Deshpande
