1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 925/2009 [Sau. Nandabai Paraskar ..vs.. Presiding Officer & ors] ===================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE:6.3.2009 . Heard Shri Gangane, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Sonare, A.G.P. for respondent no.4. 2] Petitioner is challenging the order of Divisional Commissioner passed in the appeal No.17/BVP Act 33 (5)/2007-08 of Adgaon Kd. Tahsil Akot, District : Akola, dated 20.11.2008. 3] Facts are thus – the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in the meeting of Gram Panchayat dated 13.3.2008, which was rolled over to 13.3.2008 for want of quorum. 4] It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the election programme petitioner had filed her nomination paper at 11.50. Respondent no.3 has filed her nomination at 12.35 p.m. There was no objection as regards for late filing of the nomination paper by the respondent no.3 by the members of the gram Panchayat. Nomination paper was rejected. Then respondent no.3 preferred complaint before the Additional Collector, Akola. Her complaint was allowed. Petitioner then preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. Her appeal came to be dismissed. 2 5] The reasons recorded by the learned Additional commissioner while deciding the said appeal are thus: “ It is seen from the record that Gram Panchayat, Adgaon Kd. has to elect its Sarpanch on 13.3.2008, however, this meeting was adjourned for want of corum and held on next date i.e. 14.3.2008. Two nominations were received by the Presiding Officer i.e. one filed by the appellant and another of Smt. Kusumtai Randhe. However, nomination of Smt. Kusumtai Randhe was rejected on the ground of delay. As per one citation published in Mh.L.J. 424 wherein it is held that “Scrutiny of nomination papers under rule 9 can take place only after commencement of the meeting convened under section 33(1) with the requisite corum as prescribed under Rule 11 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Upasarpanch) Election Rules. Where the Presiding Officer proceeded with scrutiny of nominations even though there 3as no requisite corum to commence the meeting, the order passed by the Presiding Officer rejecting nomination paper illegal.”. Therefore, order passed by the lower court is just and correct and needs no interference from this authority.” According to him, there was no requisite quorum to continue the meeting, when the nomination paper of the respondent no.3 was rejected. 6] I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.P. at length 3 7 Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati while deciding the appeal has referred to one citation Mh.L.J. 424 , though the name of the parties or year of the Journal are not stated in the said order. 8] Said judgment appears to be reported in 2001 (1)Mh.LJ. 424 [Jyoti Gautam Patil ..vs.. Presiding Officer for Meeting Convened for Election of Sarpanch, Waigaon] wherein in paragraph 6 it has been observed thus: “6- In our opinion, the Presiding Officer committed an error in dealing with the objection filed by the member challenging the nomination filed by the petitioner for contesting the post of Sarpanch as there was no requisite quorum to commence with the meeting and ought to have adjourned the meeting without transacting any business in accordance with sub rule (2) of Rule 11. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned decision will have to be held invalid. This is a fit case where Court can invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the reason that the Presiding Officer failed to proceed in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the election Rules of 1964.” Here is a case where nomination paper of respondent no.3 was rejected when there was no requisite quorum. Therefore, the principles 4 laid down by this court in the aforesaid case by Division Bench would be applicable. No doubt it is the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the nomination paper of respondent no.3 was rejected, she was absent and therefore, there was no sufficient quorum. Thus, respondent no.3 is taking advantage of her own wrong. It was deliberately committed to make quorum insufficient. According to him; further in such circumstances the rejection of the nomination paper of respondent no.3 was proper and legal. The meeting was was adjourned on the next date and as respondent no.3 had abstained from attending the meeting after filing nomination paper. It was thus proper on the part of the Election Officer to reject her nomination paper though technically there was no quorum. 9] It is not possible to accept this contention in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court referred to above. Apart from this; it cannot be forgotten that fresh election can be held and even petitioner can contest the said election. Election Officer would take appropriate care for following rules and law relating to such elections. I do not find any merit in the petition or sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE smp.