1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7703 OF 2010 Chandrakala w/o Shivaji Janglekar, age: 24 years, Occ: Household, R/o Karkheli, Tq. Dharmabad, District Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1 State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, through its Commissioner, New Administrative Building, Opposite Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 Returning Officer for Elections of Village Panchayat Karkheli, Tq. Dharmabad, District Nanded (Athar Ali Khan, Superintendent, Panchayat Samiti, Dharmabad, District Nanded). Respondents Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patill, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.2. Mr.A.N.Irpatgire, advocate for caveator. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 26 th August, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Petitioner herein is challenging the order dated 23.08.2010, passed by the Returning Officer, rejecting nomination paper tendered by her with a view to contest election to the seat of member of village panchayat Karkheli, Tq. Dharmabad, as against a seat earmarked for Scheduled Tribe category. Although the petitioner tendered two separate nomination papers with a view to contest election from two different wards, however, the petitioner is restricting her challenge in respect of rejection of her nomination paper with a view to contest election from Ward No.2. 3 It is contended by the petitioner that she has secured caste certificate in her maiden name i.e. Chandrakala d/o Rukmaji Barole. The copy of the caste certificate dated 30.12.1994, issued by the Taluka Magistrate, Biloli is placed on record. The petitioner also presented an affidavit to the Returning Officer contending therein that after her marriage, her name is changed as Chandrakala Shivaji Janglekar. As she has presented nomination paper in the name which she has acquired after marriage, obviously there is discrepancy in the maiden name and the name acquired by the petitioner after her marriage. This inconsistency 3 in the names contained in two documents i.e. nomination paper and caste certificate was explained by her by presenting an affidavit. The Returning Officer, however, overlooking these aspects, proceeded to reject the nomination paper. The reason recorded for rejecting the nomination is that there appears inconsistency in the name recorded in the caste certificate and one recorded in the nomination paper presented by the petitioner. The inconsistency has been explained by the petitioner, which ought to have been taken into account by the Returning Officer. 4 Learned Counsel appearing for the caveator, who is also contesting candidate at the election, contends that the caste certificate tendered by the petitioner along with the nomination paper is not authentic. It is also contended that the said caste certificate has not been issued by the competent authority, whose signature appears on the certificate. 5 It would be open for the caveator to raise appropriate objection before the Scrutiny Committee as well as it would be open for the caveator to take appropriate action in that behalf. The petitioner, if, has committed any irregularity or impropriety in tendering false or fabricated document in the proceedings before the Returning Officer or on the record of this Court, petitioner takes a risk of consequential action. The inquiry before the Returning Officer is of summary nature and it is not open for the Returning Officer to take into account such objections, which are 4 essentially required to be dealt with by the authorities issuing the certificate or the Scrutiny Committee. 6 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the judgment in the matter of Mayaraju Ghavghave Vs. Returning Officer & another, reported in 2004 (5) Bom. C.R. 146 and contended that in appropriate cases, even against rejection of nomination paper, the indulgence shown by the Court subserves the progress of election thereby facilitating completion of the election and such interference would not amount to calling in question the election. Reliance is placed on the observations made in para 27 and 32 of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court. The said judgment of the Division Bench has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the matter of Baburao s/o Dattarao Budhwant Vs. The State Election Commission & another (Writ Petition No.6594 of 2010) decided on 29 th July, 2010. In view of the law laid down by this Court, this is a fit case wherein interference is required to be caused. 7 In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, the order passed by the Returning Officer needs to be quashed and set aside and same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The Returning Officer is directed to accept the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner with a view to participate in the process of election to village Panchayat Karkheli, Tq. Dharmabad, from 5 Ward No.2. The Returning Officer shall also allot symbol to the petitioner for facilitating her to participate in the process of election. It would be open for the Returning Officer to allot symbol to any other candidate who is in the fray. 8 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. 9 Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court, be supplied to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp770310