( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6971 OF 2010 Ramesh s/o Kondbarao Mulgir, R/o Potra, Tq. Kalamnuri, District Hingoli. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State Election Commission, through the Election Commissioner, Maharashtra. 2. The Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat Potra, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. 3. Devshala w/o Ashokrao Mulgir, R/o Potra, Tq. Kalamnuri, District Hingoli. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. M.V. Ghadge, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for the respondent No. 1. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, with consent of learned counsel. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns order of the respondent No. 2 – Returning Officer whereby the nomination form of the respondent No. 3 – Devshala was ( 2 ) accepted notwithstanding the objection raised by the petitioner regarding false information given by her in the declaration about absence of her involvement in any crime which is punishable for more than two (2) years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner – Mr. Ghatge M.V. makes a statement that the respondent No. 3 is personally served. He has placed on record the copy of duly served notice, signed by the respondent No. 3 – Devshala. Though served, the respondent No. 3 – Devshala has remained absent. 4. The copies of the relevant record pertaining to nomination paper purport to show, explicitly, that the respondent No. 3 – Devshala filed her nomination form from ward No. 2 and categorically made declaration that she is not involved in any offence which is punishable for more than two (2) years. It is on the basis of her such declaration that she has been considered as eligible. It appears from the record that the petitioner objected her candidature by filing application dated 26th July, 2010 (Exh-A to the petition). It also appears that the application of the petitioner was duly supported by copy of the chargesheet filed by the police in crime No. 54/2006. The copy of the chargesheet would indicate ( 3 ) that the respondent No. 3 – Smt. Devshala is shown as accused No. 5 in the criminal case. The offence alleged against one Rahul Madhavrao Nile and others is for offences punishable under section 498-A, 323 and 506 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. 5. The respondent No. 3 – Devshala did not make any statement on affidavit that she was discharged as on the date of filing of the nomination paper in the said criminal case. Nor the respondent No. 2 – Returning Officer verified the fact situation. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is explicit that the declaration made by the respondent No. 3 – Devshala is untrue. Her involvement in the alleged offence ought to have been verified by the respondent No. 2 – Returning Officer. There is no dispute about the fact that offence under section 498-A of I.P. Code is punishable for term of more than two (2) years’ sentence. Mr. Shelke, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, makes a statement that the nomination form could not be rejected by the respondent No. 2 on account of the objection raised by the petitioner, because it is a summary enquiry. True, the ( 4 ) respondent No. 2 was required to conduct summary enquiry. Unfortunately, he did not conduct any enquiry, least the summary enquiry, though a copy of the chargesheet was placed on record in support of the objection raised by the petitioner. In other words, the respondent No. 2 acted perfunctorily without making any enquiry. He did not briefly record statements of the petitioner and the respondent No.3, nor he verified from the respondent No. 3 – Devshala about the status of the said criminal case. Under these circumstances, the acceptance of nomination form of the respondent no. 3 – Devshala is per se illegal, improper and arbitrary. It is true, no doubt, that the election process is at the fag end and ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with such process at such juncture. Still, however, when required to interfere in order to avoid further multiplicity of litigation and upsetting of the entire election process as such, this Court cannot keep the fingers crossed. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the respondent No.2 – Returning Officer is set aside. The respondent No. 2 – Returning Officer is directed to disallow the candidature of the respondent No. 3 – Smt. Devshala in the instant election and to declare that she is ( 5 ) not a valid candidate for the election. He shall place on board at conspicuous place/s in front of Village Panchayat office and also shall manage to promulgate the information regarding rejection of the nomination of the respondent No. 3 – Smt. Devshala and to stamp out her name from the printed election ballet paper or the electronic voting machine, as the case may be, and if it cannot be done, then to inform the voters at the polling station/s that she is not the valid candidate for the election. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 8. The petitioner is at liberty to serve the copy of this order on the respondents No. 2 and 3 immediately. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to communicate the order to the respondent No. 2 – Returning Officer by telephonic message or in any manner, as expeditiously as possible. 9. The parties may act on copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6971-10 ( 6 )