Bombay High Court
Gauttam Sakharam Surywanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.75 OF 2021
Gauttam Sakharam Suryawanshi,
Age : 46 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Reulgaon, Tq. Vasmat,
District Hingoli PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Tahsildar, Vasmat,
Tq. Vasmat, District Hingoli
3. The Returning Officer,
Grampanchayat General Elections-2020,
Reulgaon, Tq. Vamat, Dist. Hingoli
4. The State Election Commission,
New Administrative Building,
In front of Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.237 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.75 OF 2021
(Amol Baban Suryawanshi Vs. Gautam Sakharam Suryawanshi and others)
----
Mr. Nilkanth R. Pawade, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr. A.B. Kadethankar, Standing Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4
Mr. R.J. Nirmal, Advocate for the applicant/intervenor
----
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 04.01.2021
2 WPST75-2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. Leave is granted to correct the title clause of the petition.
3. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
4. By the impugned order, nomination of the petitioner from ward
No.3 reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates in the Grampanchayat election
which is underway, has been rejected by the respondent - Returning Officer
on the ground that he failed to file the caste certificate.
5. Mr. N.R. Pawade, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits
that it was merely by mistake that the petitioner failed to annex a copy of the
caste certificate though required by law to be annexed. However, the mistake
was still curable and the Returning Officer ought to have extended an
opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defect, particularly when the
petitioner was present before him at the time of scrutiny. He submits that
there was ample record alongwith the nomination form showing that the
caste certificate was submitted for verification with the concerned Scrutiny
Committee and necessary undertaking and affidavits were filed pursuant to
Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. Pendency of such a
proposal with the Scrutiny Committee would imply existence of the caste
3 WPST75-2021
certificate.
6. Mr. A.B. Kadethankar, learned Standing Advocate for the State
Election Commission and Mr. R.J. Nirmal, learned Advocate for the
intervenor submit that no fault can be found with the Returning Officer in
rejecting nomination of the petitioner for non-submission of the caste
certificate, when admittedly it was not so annexed, when law requires it to be
annexed.
7. True it is that technically the petitioner ought to have annexed a
copy of the caste certificate with the nomination form as required by Section
10-1A of the Village Panchayat Act.
8. However, when apparently the petitioner was present before the
Returning Officer, the latter could have brought this defect to his notice,
which would have enabled him to cure the defect. Pertinently, the necessary
documents, affidavit and undertaking regarding submission of proposal with
the Caste Scrutiny Committee were also annexed with the nomination form,
which fact presupposes existence of a caste certificate.
9. True it is that the Returning Officer could not have, in the
absence of the caste certificate, validated the nomination form. But the whole
purpose of undertaking the election process in a democratic set up requires
him to get the defects cured more so in view of Rule 11 (2A) of the Village
Panchayat Election Rules empower rather require him to allow minor defects
4 WPST75-2021
to be cured.
10. It is in view of such state-of-affairs, the defect can now be
allowed to be cured to enable the petitioner to contest the election.
11. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed
and set aside. The Respondent - Returning Officer shall now permit the
petitioner to submit the caste certificate between 2.00 p.m. and 2.15 p.m.
today. The petitioner shall personally remain present before him and shall
tender a copy of the caste certificate.
12. Mr. A.B. Kadethankar, learned Standing Advocate for the State
Election Commission shall inform the concerned Returning Officer and even
the petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Returning Officer regarding
passing of this order.
13. The Returning Officer shall proceed to act on the basis of the
affidavit to be tendered by the petitioner.
14. The Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE
npj/WPST75-2021
5 WPST75-2021
