1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9673 OF 2010 Anil s/o Bhimrao Chavan age 22 years, occ. Agriculture r/o Rathod-Nagar Tq. & Dist. Jalna. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State Election Commission through Collector, Jalna. 2 The Tahsildar, Jalna and Assistant Returning Officer for the Election of Bombay Village Panchayat Rathod-Nagar Tq. & Dist. Jalna. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondents. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th OCTOBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Nomination paper tendered by the petitioner with a view to contest the election for the seat of member of Village Panchayat Rathod-Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Jalna has been turned down by the Returning Officer in view of order passed on 11-10-2010 on account of error in mentioning the age in his nomination paper. 4 The petitioner has mentioned his age as 20 years in the nomination paper as well as the documents accompanying the nomination paper. An objection was raised suo motu by the Returning Officer that the prescribed age for contesting the election is 21 years and as the petitioner has shown his age as 20 years, his nomination paper cannot be accepted and as such, the same came to be rejected. 5 It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of scrutiny it was pointed out to the Returning Officer that the petitioner has completed 21 years of age and his date of birth is 20 th March, 1989. The documents in 3 respect of school leaving certificate issued by the school as well as the transfer certificate issued by the college were tendered to the Returning Officer. Petitioner also tenders affidavit sworn on 11-10-2010. The voters’ identity card issued to the petitioner also mentioned his year of birth as 1989. Considering the record tendered by the petitioner disclosing that the age of the petitioner is 21 years and not 20 years, the error occurred in mentioning the age in the nomination paper can be termed as inadvertent error. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission in respect of scrutiny of nomination paper. It has been directed in paragraph no. 6 of the guidelines that the nomination paper shall not be rejected on account of error in mentioning the age. Considering the directives issued by the State Election Commission also, the error which has crept in respect of age of the candidate shall have to be considered as an inadvertent error. 6 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Returning Officer needs to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Nomination paper tendered by the petitioner shall be deemed to have been accepted and he shall be permitted to participate in the process of election. Rule is accordingly 4 made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 7 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. 8 Authentic copy of the order be supplied to the parties. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp9673.10.odt