1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9798 OF 2010 Sushilabai Bhagwan Pandit Petitioner Versus The State Election Commission, through the Election Commissioner, Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.S.K.Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.3 & 4 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9805 OF 2010 Narayan s/o Devidas Lathe Petitioner Versus The State Election Commission, through the Election Commissioner, Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.S.K.Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.3 & 4 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9806 OF 2010 Digambar Limbaji Bhalenavru Petitioner 2 Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.S.B. Choudhari, advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.1 & 4 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9808 OF 2010 Kausalyabai w/o Sukhlal Kakade Petitioner Versus The State Election Commission & others Respondents Mr.R.V.Gore, advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2 . Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P. For Respondents No.3. Mr.R.P.Phatke, advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th October, 2010. P.C.: 1 The nomination papers tendered by respective petitioners with a view to contest elections to the seat of a member of village panchayat have been rejected on the ground that evidence in respect of transmitting proposals for verification of caste claim to the Scrutiny Committee is not annexed to the 3 nomination papers. 2 It is the contention of all the petitioners that in fact proposals are tendered with the office of Collector and acknowledgment receipts received from the Collector Office are annexed to the nomination papers. It is also further contended that in view of the guidelines issued by the State Government in respect of submission of caste claim for verification to the Scrutiny Committee, the proposals were tendered with the Collector. 3 However, acknowledgment issued by the Collector office cannot be said to be sufficient compliance of provisions of Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, as amended by the Amending Act and what is expected is the submission of acknowledgment received from the Scrutiny Committee in respect of receipt of proposals for verification of caste claim. 4 Learned Single Judge of this Court, while dealing with Writ Petition No.6973 of 2010, has taken a view that strict compliance of provisions of Section 10-1A is a precondition for acceptance of nomination paper and the mode prescribed under the statute cannot be substituted or deviated from. The view adopted by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition, referred to above, has been confirmed by the Division Bench while dealing with L.P.A. No.226 of 2010. 4 5 Another Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with Writ Petitions No.9742, 9743 and 9744 of 2010, has also emphasized the need of strict adherence to the provisions of the Act. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that rejection of nomination paper on the ground that petitioners have not submitted acknowledgment of the caste certificate in token of receipt of the application preferred by petitioners for scrutiny of their caste claims is proper and the issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment in L.P.A. No.226/2010. 6 In this view of the matter, orders passed by the Returning Officer rejecting nomination papers tendered by respective petitioners cannot be said to be erroneous. No interference is called for. 7 Writ Petitions stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp979810