1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9876 OF 2010 Jijabai w/o Kishan Humbad, Age 58 years, Occ. Household, R/o At Nandanwan, Post Mangalsangavi, Taluka Kandhar, District Nanded. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat, Nandanwan, At Nandanwan, Post Mangalsangavi, Taluka Kandhar, District Nanded. 2. The State Election Commission, through Chief Election Commissioner, Mumbai. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri N.N. Chitlange, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 ..... CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 18th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The nomination paper tendered by the petitioner with a view to contest election to a seat of member of Village Panchayat, Nandanwan, Taluka Kandhar, District Nanded is directed to be accepted by the Returning Officer. However, while accepting the nomination paper, the Returning Officer has 2 directed acceptance of the candidature from General category. The petitioner is a lady and according to her, she has tendered her nomination paper for a seat ear-marked for ladies. On perusal of nomination paper, it appears that, she has marked against an entry “General Women reserved” whereas while filling up the nomination paper, she has noted the category from which she wishes to contest the election as “General”. It is not disputed that the petitioner is an illiterate lady and has put her thumb impression on the nomination paper. It has been verified by the Returning Officer. According to petitioner, she has made her intention clear that she wants to contest the election from a seat ear-marked for ladies. After acceptance of nomination paper, the Returning Officer has tendered an acknowledgement, which is in prescribed form, mentioning therein that the nomination paper has been tendered from amongst the reserved category. The nomination paper has also been accepted as per the endorsement appearing in Part 4. However, it is not specified as to whether the nomination paper is accepted from General category or as against the seat ear-marked for ladies. However, while declaring the list of contesting candidates, the Returning Officer has mentioned her name as a contestant from General category. The petitioner disputes the correctness of categorisation of her candidature from General category. It appears that, the Returning Officer has incorrectly categorised her name from the General category. On receipt of the nomination paper, the Returning Officer has recorded the entries in a register maintained by him. So far as the petitioner is 3 concerned, her name appears at Sr.No.8 in the register and it appears that, her candidature was presented for a seat ear- marked for Ladies General category. There also appears some scoring and the words “Women Reserved” have been scored off. The contention of the petitioner that her name has been deliberately categorised from amongst the General category although she has presented her nomination for a seat ear- marked for Women Reserved category appears to be correct to some extent. 3. It is for the Returning Officer to ensure as to from which category the nomination paper is presented by the candidate and shall verify the nomination paper on receipt of paper. The responsibility is more on the shoulders of Returning Officer when the contesting candidate is illiterate woman. As has been observed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.6475/2010, decided on 21.7.2010, that the Returning Officer is not supposed to act merely as a stamping authority or authority only to carry out the work without analysing whether the defect is of significant nature or that it could be condoned being of hyper technical character. The Returning Officer is supposed to verify the nomination paper tendered before him and if some defect which is not of a substantial character, comes to his notice, it would be for him to get such defects corrected. In the instant matter, the candidate has tendered her nomination paper from the Women General category and made her intention clear to the Returning Officer. The candidate is an illiterate lady. 4 In such circumstances, the Returning Officer ought to have ensured that her candidature is accepted from the Women General category. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the present petition needs to be allowed. The Writ Petition is allowed. The Returning Officer is directed to categorise the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner from amongst a Woman Reserved category and make necessary changes in record. The petitioner shall be permitted to contest the election as a candidate belonging to Women General Category from Ward No.2. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs. R.M. BORDE JUDGE