1 wp2392.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2392 OF 2011 Salama Bee Shaikh Mushir ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent no.2. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 24th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. On the first date of hearing, the Petition can be disposed of at the admission stage, because of co-operation of learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Hence, Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Advocate Mr. Patil for petitioner contends that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act permit the voter of Gram Panchayat to contest from any ward in area of Gram Panchayat and hence, rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner by Returning Officer on the ground that for by-election the voters in concerned ward only can contest the election, is misconceived. He states that such a reason can not be supported even by Rule 8 sub-Rule 3 of Bombay Village Panchayat Elections Rules, 1959. He supports his contentions by judgment dated 20th 2 wp2392.11 October, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 9852 of 2010 decided at Aurangabad. 3. Advocate Mr. Malte for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. support the impugned order. They contend that the Returning Officer has rightly found that it was not general election but by- election to fill in the vacancy resulting in ward no.1. As the name of petitioner did not figure in ward no.1, his nomination paper has been rightly rejected. 4. The reliance is being placed upon the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Rules, 1959. Perusal of that rule shows that it only enables the contestant to contest from more than one ward when the elections are being held simultaneously to fill in the vacancies for number of wards. There is nothing in language of Rule 8(3) to show that such candidates must be a voter enrolled in ward of which vacancy has arisen. On the contrary, it shows enabling provision permitting the contestant to contest from more than one ward or other ward also. Provisions of Rule 13 (2) are more clear in this respect and they apply not only to general election but also to by-elections. When the said sub section 2 is construed in background of sub section 1, difference in scheme envisaged by Legislature becomes apparent. Under Section 13(1) the voter is competent to caste his vote only in the ward to which the list of voters in which his name is appearing pertains. This requirement does not figure in sub-section 2. 5. Learned A.G.P. and Mr. Malte has also contended that elections are scheduled on 27th March, 2011, this Court should not interfere in the matter. It is apparent that the matter is about 3 wp2392.11 rejection of nomination paper and hence, if this Court refuses to interfere at this stage, the subsequent elections will be materially affected. Impugned order is therefore unsustainable. Same is quashed and set aside. 6. The order dated 14.03.2011 rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The Respondent no.1 is directed to accept the nomination paper of the petitioner and to permit her to contest accordingly. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. 7. The parties to act upon the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2392.11