(1) WP. 6391.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2010 Smt. Sheshekalabai Panditrao Bhalerao, Age: 60 years, Occu.: Household, R/o.: Pohandul, Tal. Sonpeth, District : Parbhani .. Petitioner VERSUS 1] Mahararashtra State Election Commission, Maharashtra, Through Assistant Commissioner, Opp. Mantralaya Bhavan, Mumbai 2] The Returning Officer, Village Panchayat Election 2010, Village Panchayat Pohandul, Taluka : Sonpeth, Dist. : Parbhani (Copy to be served on Standing Counsel Maharashtra State Election Commission) .. Respondents Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. (2) WP. 6391.2010 2. Petitioner filed her nomination form from the reserved constituency during election of the Village Panchayat Pohandul (District Parbhani). There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is an illiterate, rustic and member of scheduled caste. It appears that she does not know signing and had fixed her thumb impression at the bottom of the nomination form. She complied with all the requirements except the alleged defect that the thumb impression was not attested at the bottom of schedule-II appended with the nomination form. It is on such kind of technical defect that the nomination form is rejected by the Returning Officer. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Normally, the Petition cannot be entertained inasmuch as the election process has already begun. It is only in case of a strong ground demonstrated by the petitioner, which is likely to upset the election itself, that such intervention may be permissible in the exercise of extra-ordinary powers available under (3) WP. 6391.2010 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise, the candidate may be left to agitate the questions by way of regular election Petition after the elections are over. In the present case, however, the record itself shows that the petitioner was not at fault. It is true, no doubt, that her thumb impression was not attested and schedule-II was not verified by the Returning Officer. However, it is the duty of the Returning Officer to verify the thumb impression and the information furnished by the candidate. It is not stated by the Returning Officer that the petitioner was unavailable for the purpose of verification. The petitioner could have been called upon to put her thumb impression at the bottom of schedule-II and the information could have been verified by the Scrutiny Officer. The impugned order (Exh.”C” to the Petition) purports to show that the deficiency which was noticed was in respect of absence of schedule-II alongwith the nomination paper and that the same was not attested. In fact, the nomination form was accompanied by schedule-II and therefore there was major compliance of the (4) WP. 6391.2010 requirement. In other words, the endorsement made by the Returning Officer is partly inaccurate. As said before, due care was not taken by the Returning Officer to verify the information and attest the thumb impression by calling upon the petitioner to put her thumb impression in his presence. In view of the admitted facts, therefore, the nomination form of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the right to contest the election is an important right available to such a candidate, in the democratic process. The right cannot be lightly taken away and in any case, for the flimsy reason that her thumb impression was not attested. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of rejection of the nomination form is patently erroneous. 5. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be allowed to participate in the election process as a candidate and the Returning officer shall call upon her to put her thumb impression at the bottom of (5) WP. 6391.2010 schedule-II and the same may be attested. If she will not however turn up to comply with the requirement, then her nomination form may be rejected by giving appropriate reasons. If the requirement is complied with, she may be assigned symbol and may be allowed to participate in the elections. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 6. Parties may act on a copy of this judgment, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp