Bombay High Court
Ankush Vijaykumar Biradar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
910 wp 71 21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 71 OF 2021
Ankush s/o Vijaykumar Biradar,
Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Achwala, Tq. Deoni, Dist.
Latur. ... Petitioner.
VERSUS.
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary to the
Government of Maharashtra in
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) The State Election Commission,
Maharashtra,
New Administrative Building,
Opp. Mantralaya, Madam Cama
Road, Mumbai- 400 032,
Through its Commissioner.
3) The District Election Officer/
Collector, Latur.
4) Returning Officer,
appointed for holding the
Elections to Grampanchayat
Achwala, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur,
Dist. Latur. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar.
A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1 & 3 : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar.
Advocate for the Respondents No. 2 & 4 : Mr. A.B. Kadethankar.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 04.01.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of
910 wp 71 21.odt
admission.
2. The petitioner has filed his nomination for Ward No. 1B from Achwala
Tq. Deoni constituency. Admittedly it was reserved for General (woman)
category though he is male. His nomination has been rejected for this
reason alone by the impugned order.
3. The learned advocate Mr. Patil-Jamalpurkar for the petitioner submits
that the defect was curable and ought to have been allowed to cured. The
State Election Commission has issued general direction to all the Returning
Officers by the communication dated 31.12.2020 to allow the candidates to
cure such technical defects including error in mentioning the ward number.
The petitioner therefore ought to have been allowed to cure the defect
instead of rejecting his nomination.
4. The learned advocate Mr. Kadethankar fairly concedes that the error is
apparent on the face of it. The petitioner being a male candidate could not
have applied and filed a nomination for a seat reserved for woman.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner in spite of being a male
candidate has mentioned Ward No. 1B in the nomination form instead of
Ward No. 1C, the error is certainly glaring and could have been allowed to
be cured particularly in the light of the circular dated 31.12.2020 issued by
the State Election Commission as also as per Rule 11(2-A) of the Village
Panchayat Election Rules, 1959.
6. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set
aside. The Returning Officer shall now allow the petitioner to make
necessary and appropriate corrections in the nomination form and consider
his nomination as such pursuant to change. The Returning Officer will be at
liberty to independently undertake the scrutiny but shall not reject the
nomination form only for this reason.
7. The petitioner shall appear before the Returning Officer for necessary
910 wp 71 21.odt
correction between 1.30 p.m. and 2 p.m. today with an affidavit about
passing of this order.
8. The learned advocate Mr. Kadethankar for the Election Commission as
well as the learned advocate for the petitioner are instructed to
communicate this order to the Returning Officer.
9. The Returning Officer shall proceed to act on the basis of the affidavit
to be tendered by the petitioner.
10. The rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
