1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7712 OF 2010 Anita w/o Narayan Mandale, age: 32 years, Occ: Household, R/o Karkheli, Tq. Dharmabad, District Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1 State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, through its Commissioner, New Administrative Building, Opposite Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 Returning Officer for Elections of Village Panchayat Karkheli, Tq. Dharmabad, District Nanded (Athar Ali Khan, Superintendent, Panchayat Samiti, Dharmabad, District Nanded) Respondents Mr.Mahesh S. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 26 th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 2 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The rejection of nomination paper tendered by the petitioner with a view to contest election for the seat of member of village panchayat Karkheli from Ward No.3 for the seat earmarked for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) category, is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3 The petitioner tendered her nomination paper on 21.08.2010 recording her name as Anita w/o Narayan Mandale. Along with the nomination paper, she tendered caste certificate which was issued in her favour in the year 1994, which records her maiden name as Nimpulwad Anita Tukaram. Along with the nomination paper, an affidavit is placed on record by the petitioner explaining therein that after solemnization of her marriage, her name is changed as “Mandale Anita Narayan, whereas, caste certificate issued in the year 1994 recorded her maiden name as Nimpulwad Anita Tukaram. The Returning Officer, without applying his mind to the facts stated in the affidavit, proceeded to reject the nomination paper. The order passed by the Returning Officer is, therefore, obviously erroneous. The error that has been committed by the Returning Officer is capable of being corrected without causing undue interference in the process of election. 3 4 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice the judgment in the matter of Mayaraju Ghavghave Vs. Returning Officer & another, reported in 2004 (5) Bom. C.R. 146 and contended that in appropriate cases, even against rejection of nomination paper, the indulgence shown by the Court subserves the progress of election thereby facilitating completion of the election and such interference would not amount to calling in question the election. Reliance is placed on the observations made in para 27 and 32 of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court. The said judgment of the Division Bench has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the matter of Baburao s/o Dattarao Budhwant Vs. The State Election Commission & another (Writ Petition No.6594 of 2010) decided on 29 th July, 2010. In view of the law laid down by this Court, this is a fit case wherein interference is required to be caused. 5 In the facts and circumstances stated above, the order passed by the Returning Officer on 23.08.2010 rejecting the nomination paper presented by the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The Returning Officer is directed to accept the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner with a view to contest election from Ward No.3 earmarked for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) category. The Returning Officer is also directed to allot symbol to the petitioner or any other candidate in the fray for facilitating them to 4 participate in the process of election. 6 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. 10 Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court, be supplied to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp771210