{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7882 OF 2010 Sow. Subhadrabai w/o Shankardas Vaishnav, age: 55 years, Occ: Household, R/o Naigaon, Tq. Phulambri, District Aurangabad. Petitioner Versus 1 The State Election Commission, State of Maharashtra. 2 The District Collector, Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad. 3 The Returning Officer, Grampanchayat, Naigaon, Tq. Phulambri, Dist.Aurangabad and the Tahsildar, Phulambri, District Aurangabad. Respondents Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, advocate for petitioner Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 3. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 01 st September, 2010 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} 2 The order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner with a view to contest election to the seat of a Member of Village Panchayat Naigaon, Taluka Phulambri, is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3 The nomination paper tendered by the petitioner has been rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that acknowledgment receipt in respect of tendering of proposal for verification of status claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee is not accompanied with the nomination paper. 4 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that such a proposal was already tendered to the Scrutiny Committee on 17.07.2010. A receipt in that regard is placed on record at page 15 to the petition. 5 The Returning Officer, while conducting inquiry in that regard, has not applied his mind to the record of the case. The Returning Officer was supposed to conduct proper inquiry in the matter and call upon the petitioner to produce evidence in respect of submission of status claim to the scrutiny committee. The Returning Officer, however, proceeded to reject the nomination paper without calling upon the petitioner to fulfill the requirement. The fact, however, remains that on the date of presentation of nomination paper, the proposal was already tendered to the {3} Scrutiny Committee. The another reason which compels this Court to cause interference in the matter is that there was only one nomination received for the election to Ward No.3 from `OBC Women’ category. On rejection of nomination paper tendered by the petitioner herein, in fact there remained no candidate in the fray. This situation would have led to declaration of bye-election for electing candidate from the aforesaid category from Ward No.3. This is one of the reasons which compels this Court to cause interference in the matter. The fact that the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner fulfills all other requirements except filing of the `acknowledgment’, is not controverted by the respondents. As stated above, it is revealed from the record that the proposal in respect of scrutiny of status claim was also tendered with the Committee and acknowledgment issued in that regard by the Committee finds place at page 15 to this petition. Considering all these relevant circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6 Resultantly, Writ Petition stands allowed. The order passed by the Returning Officer on 23.08.2010 rejecting the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner is quashed and set aside and the Returning Officer is directed to accept the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner and proceed to take further steps in furtherance of completing process of election. {4} 7 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. 8 Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court, be supplied to the parties concerned. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp788210