Full Judgment Text
1 wp2009.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2009 of 2015
Sau. Maina Anna Manvar,
aged 49 years, Occ. Homemaker,
R/o. Post Karli, Tq. Manora,
Distt. Washim. …...
PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1] Returning Officer cum Naib Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office Manora,
Distt. Washim.
2] Tahsildar,
Tahsil Manora, Distt. Washim
3] Collector, Distt. Washim. RESPONDENTS
Shri U.J.Deshpande, counsel for Petitioner.
Shri A.D.Sonak, AGP for Respondents
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
th
DATE : 20 APRIL, 2015 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard the matter finally by consent of the
learned counsels appearing for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:41 :::
2 wp2009.15.odt
th
2] On 10 April, 2015, this court had passed an
order as under.
“ The petitioner submitted her nomination form
for election to the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste
candidate from Ward No.3 of Gram Panchayat Karli,
Tahsil Manora, District Washim. The said
nomination form has been rejected by the Returning
Officer on the ground that the caste certificate is in the
name of Kumari Maina Ramchandra Bhagat, whereas the
name of the petitioner is Sau. Maina Anna Manvar.
The petitioner had given an undertaking before the
Returning Officer stating that her maiden name was Kumari
Maina Ramchandra Bhagat and after marriage, her name
is changed to Sau. Maina Anna Manvar. According
to the petitioner, the caste certificate produced is,
therefore, on her own name. The Returning Officer has
passed an order rejecting the nomination form of the
petitioner on 8.4.2015 and the last date for withdrawal is
10.4.2015.
Shri Sonak, the learned AGP appearing for the
respondents, was given time to take instructions in the
matter. He has urged that in the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Pandurang
Bharsakade v. Returning Officer, Akot and another, reported
in 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 359, it has been held that improper
rejection or acceptance of nomination paper can be made
the subject matter of challenge in an election petition under
Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958,
and a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India against the rejection of nomination paper cannot
lie.
Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, has relied upon the subsequent two decisions of
this Court (i) in the case of Sudhakar Vitthal
Misal v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in
2007(6) ALL MR 773; and (ii) in the case of Deepak
s/o Vishwasrao Khule v. Collector, Akola and others,
reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 966. In the first decision in
Sudhakar Misal's case, the earlier decision of the
Division Bench in Vinod Bharsakade's case has been
considered. The decision in Deepak Khule's case
follows the decision in Sudhakar Misal's case. It has
been held that in cases of rejection of nomination paper,
the petitioner comes before the Court to assert his
right to contest the election and not to call in question the
election. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:41 :::
3 wp2009.15.odt
that the bar to interference by Courts in electoral matter is
provided under Articles 243O(b) and 329(b) read with
Sections 15 and 15A of the Bombay Village Panchayats
Act.
In view of this, issue notices for final disposal of the
matter, to the respondents, returnable on 20.4.2015.
Shri Sonak, the learned AGP, waives service of notices
for the respondents.
By way of interim order, the respondents are directed to
provisionally accept the nomination form of the
petitioner to contest the election to the seat
reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate from Ward
No.3 of Gram Panchayat Karli, Tahsil Manora, District
Washim, if it is otherwise, in accordance with law.
The entire process of the election of the petitioner shall
be subject to the result of this petition.
Hamdast granted.
The learned AGP to communicate this order to
the concerned Authorities "
3] In response to the aforesaid order, the
nomination form of the petitioner has been provisionally
accepted to contest the election to the seat reserved for
Scheduled Caste candidate from Ward No. 3 of Gram
Panchayat Karli, Tahsil Manora, Distt. Washim. Although it
was permissible for the respondents to reject the nomination
on any other ground, if available in law, it is not the case that
the nomination form was required to be rejected on any such
ground. In fact, it is also not rejected.
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:41 :::
4 wp2009.15.odt
4] There was an error apparent on the face of
record in rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner on
the ground that there is a discrepancy in the name appearing
in the caste certificate and in the nomination form. The caste
certificate is in the name of Ku. Maina Ramchandra Bhagat,
whereas the name of the petitioner as shown in the
nomination form is shown as Sou. Maina Anna Manvar. The
petitioner has given an undertaking before the Returning
Officer stating that the caste certificate is in her maiden
name. The nomination form, therefore, should have been
accepted and the order impugned cannot, therefore, be
sustained.
5] In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting
the nomination form of the petitioner is hereby quashed and
set aside. The nomination form of the petitioner has been
provisionally accepted pursuant to the interim order passed
by this Court.
The Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms
of the interim order passed by this Court, confirming
provisional acceptance of the nomination form of the
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:41 :::
5 wp2009.15.odt
petitioner. No orders as to cost.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:41 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2009 of 2015
Sau. Maina Anna Manvar,
aged 49 years, Occ. Homemaker,
R/o. Post Karli, Tq. Manora,
Distt. Washim. …...
PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1] Returning Officer cum Naib Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office Manora,
Distt. Washim.
2] Tahsildar,
Tahsil Manora, Distt. Washim
3] Collector, Distt. Washim. RESPONDENTS
Shri U.J.Deshpande, counsel for Petitioner.
Shri A.D.Sonak, AGP for Respondents
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
th
DATE : 20 APRIL, 2015 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard the matter finally by consent of the
learned counsels appearing for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:41 :::
2 wp2009.15.odt
th
2] On 10 April, 2015, this court had passed an
order as under.
“ The petitioner submitted her nomination form
for election to the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste
candidate from Ward No.3 of Gram Panchayat Karli,
Tahsil Manora, District Washim. The said
nomination form has been rejected by the Returning
Officer on the ground that the caste certificate is in the
name of Kumari Maina Ramchandra Bhagat, whereas the
name of the petitioner is Sau. Maina Anna Manvar.
The petitioner had given an undertaking before the
Returning Officer stating that her maiden name was Kumari
Maina Ramchandra Bhagat and after marriage, her name
is changed to Sau. Maina Anna Manvar. According
to the petitioner, the caste certificate produced is,
therefore, on her own name. The Returning Officer has
passed an order rejecting the nomination form of the
petitioner on 8.4.2015 and the last date for withdrawal is
10.4.2015.
Shri Sonak, the learned AGP appearing for the
respondents, was given time to take instructions in the
matter. He has urged that in the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Pandurang
Bharsakade v. Returning Officer, Akot and another, reported
in 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 359, it has been held that improper
rejection or acceptance of nomination paper can be made
the subject matter of challenge in an election petition under
Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958,
and a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India against the rejection of nomination paper cannot
lie.
Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, has relied upon the subsequent two decisions of
this Court (i) in the case of Sudhakar Vitthal
Misal v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in
2007(6) ALL MR 773; and (ii) in the case of Deepak
s/o Vishwasrao Khule v. Collector, Akola and others,
reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 966. In the first decision in
Sudhakar Misal's case, the earlier decision of the
Division Bench in Vinod Bharsakade's case has been
considered. The decision in Deepak Khule's case
follows the decision in Sudhakar Misal's case. It has
been held that in cases of rejection of nomination paper,
the petitioner comes before the Court to assert his
right to contest the election and not to call in question the
election. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:41 :::
3 wp2009.15.odt
that the bar to interference by Courts in electoral matter is
provided under Articles 243O(b) and 329(b) read with
Sections 15 and 15A of the Bombay Village Panchayats
Act.
In view of this, issue notices for final disposal of the
matter, to the respondents, returnable on 20.4.2015.
Shri Sonak, the learned AGP, waives service of notices
for the respondents.
By way of interim order, the respondents are directed to
provisionally accept the nomination form of the
petitioner to contest the election to the seat
reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate from Ward
No.3 of Gram Panchayat Karli, Tahsil Manora, District
Washim, if it is otherwise, in accordance with law.
The entire process of the election of the petitioner shall
be subject to the result of this petition.
Hamdast granted.
The learned AGP to communicate this order to
the concerned Authorities "
3] In response to the aforesaid order, the
nomination form of the petitioner has been provisionally
accepted to contest the election to the seat reserved for
Scheduled Caste candidate from Ward No. 3 of Gram
Panchayat Karli, Tahsil Manora, Distt. Washim. Although it
was permissible for the respondents to reject the nomination
on any other ground, if available in law, it is not the case that
the nomination form was required to be rejected on any such
ground. In fact, it is also not rejected.
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:41 :::
4 wp2009.15.odt
4] There was an error apparent on the face of
record in rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner on
the ground that there is a discrepancy in the name appearing
in the caste certificate and in the nomination form. The caste
certificate is in the name of Ku. Maina Ramchandra Bhagat,
whereas the name of the petitioner as shown in the
nomination form is shown as Sou. Maina Anna Manvar. The
petitioner has given an undertaking before the Returning
Officer stating that the caste certificate is in her maiden
name. The nomination form, therefore, should have been
accepted and the order impugned cannot, therefore, be
sustained.
5] In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting
the nomination form of the petitioner is hereby quashed and
set aside. The nomination form of the petitioner has been
provisionally accepted pursuant to the interim order passed
by this Court.
The Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms
of the interim order passed by this Court, confirming
provisional acceptance of the nomination form of the
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:41 :::
5 wp2009.15.odt
petitioner. No orders as to cost.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 03:02:41 :::