Nanda Shaamrao Ovhal Alias Nanda ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 95 Bom

                                                                         919.wpst.110.21.odt



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.110 OF 2021

         Nanda D/o. Shamrao Ovhal
         @ Nanda w/o. Ramdas Agashe
         Age : 56 yrs, Occu.: Household
         R/o. Kuntephal Pundi
         Tal. Ashti, Dist. Beed.                             ...        PETITIONER

                 VERSUS

1.       The State of Maharashtra
         through the Secretary
         Rural Development Department
         Maharashtra State
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2.       The Election Commission
         through its Commissioner
         Maharashtra State
         Mumbai.
3.       The Collector,
         Beed, Dist. Beed.
4.       The Returning Officer, appointed
         for General Elections, Grampanchayat
         Kuntephal (Pundi),
         Tal. Ashti, Dist. Beed.                            ... RESPONDENTS
                                          ...
          Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Jadhav h/f. Mr. Vilas S. Panpatte
                 AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar
               Advocate for Respondent No. 4: Mr. A.B. Kadethankar
                                         ...

                                    CORAM   :   MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                                    DATE    :   04.01.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. The Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

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

admission.

919.wpst.110.21.odt

2. The nomination of the petitioner in the Grampanchayat Election

for contesting from Ward No.2 reserved for N.T.C. woman has been rejected

by the Returning Officer by the impugned order on the ground that she had

not annexed a Caste Validity Certificate, acknowledgment about her

proposal for validity been forwarded to the concerned committee and the

undertaking as is required under Section 10 - 1A of the Maharashtra Village

Panchayats Act, 1959.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that as far as

undertaking is concerned it was annexed with the Nomination Form

(Exhibit-C) (page 17) which happens to be a photocopy of a certified copy

issued by the Returning Officer.

4. So far as acknowledgment regarding proposal being pending

with the concerned Scrutiny Committee, she had made an attempt to tender

it before the Returning Officer on 30.12.2020. He refused to accept it and

promised to receive it on the next day. The applicant along with her

application (Exhibit-F) had approached the Returning Officer. He

acknowledged the receipt of the complaint but still did not permit her to

remove the defects / errors which were minor.

5. The learned advocate Mr. Kadethankar for the State Election

Commission strongly opposes the petition. He submits that no fault can be

found with the impugned order. Admittedly, the documents were not filed

with the Nomination Form and therefore the impugned order was rightly

passed. The defects being material and substantial could not have been

919.wpst.110.21.odt

cured.

6. Suffice to bear in mind the Provisions of Rule 11 2-A of the

Election Rules which empowers the Returning Officer to get the minor

defects cured and prevents him from rejecting the nomination papers on the

grounds of any defect which is not of a substantial character.

7. The petitioner apparently had filed the nomination form along

with a Caste Certificate as well as an undertaking as is required by Section

10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (Exhibit-C). The impugned

order to the extent it observes that no such undertaking was filed is clearly

perverse.

8. So far as not filing acknowledgment regarding pendency of

proposal for validation before the Scrutiny Committee is concerned,

admittedly it was not annexed with the nomination form.

9. However, as can be seen from the Application (Exhibit - F)

(page No.20) the petitioner apparently had tendered the acknowledgment

to substantiate her version regarding pendency of a proposal for validation

before the concerned committee. Conspicuously, the Returning Officer also

acknowledged its receipt on 31.12.2020. He did not pass any speaking

order on this Application. There is every room to believe that the petitioner

in fact had tendered the acknowledgment regarding pendency of the

proposal which the Returning Officer could have considered, more so in

view of the general circular issued by the State Election Commission dated

31.12.2020 which permitted all the Returning Officers to file such

919.wpst.110.21.odt

acknowledgments regarding pendency of validity proceeding.

10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The

impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall appear before

the Returning Officer today before 3.00 pm and shall tender the

acknowledgment regarding pendency of Validity Proposal before the

concerned Committee. The Returning Officer shall permit her to do so and

then take appropriate decision.

11. The Returning Officer shall act only if the petitioner tenders an

affidavit regarding passing of the present order.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

habeeb