( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6594 OF 2010 Bapurao s/o Dattarao Budhwant, R/o Kanka, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State Election Commission, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai, through the District Collector, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. 2. The Returning Officer for Gram Panchayat Electionof Village Kanka, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli RESPONDENTS .... Mr. H.V. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent No. 1. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th July, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges rejection of his nomination paper from Ward No. 2 of Village Panchayat, Kanka, Taluka and District Hingoli. The petitioner filed his nomination form accompanied by necessary annexures as required under the relevant Rules. The petitioner alleges ( 2 ) that his nomination form is rejected by the Returning Officer without any reasons. The petitioner alleges further that though his name appears in the voters list, yet, he is denied the opportunity of filing his nomination in the ensuing village panchayat elections. 3. Though the nomination form has been rejected by the Returning Officer, yet, he has not assigned any particular reasons for holding that the nomination is invalid. The petitioner seems to have mentioned his serial No. 643 in the list of voters in the nomination form though it is actually 640. That is probable reason why the nomination form has been rejected. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the relevant material, it is amply clear that name of the petitioner appears in the voters list though he erroneously indicated that it was at serial No. 643. It appears that his name appears at serial No. 640 and the address is shown as House No. 142. Needless to say, the rejection of the nomination form is on hyper technical ground. It also shows total non-application of mind by the Returning Officer. Mr. Shelke, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, ( 3 ) would submit that he could not get instructions because he could not contact the respondent No. 2. He would further submit that the election process has gone far ahead and, therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner may not be permitted to participate in the election of Ward No. 2. He contended that after such delay, it may not be permissible to interfere in the process of election, and that the petitioner may be left with option to file election petition after the elections are over. 5. It is true that ordinarily, this Court will not interfere in the election process in the midst thereof. It is also true that this Court will not entertain any disputed question of fact if the same is at the bottom of rejection of the nomination form. At the same time, there is no blanket prohibition in entertaining such a petition which reflects complete lack of application of mind by the Returning Officer and rejection of the nomination paper only on fanciful ground. Mr. H.V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, makes a statement that the petitioner, under his instruction, contacted respondent No. 2 – Returning Officer and informed him to attend the Court today. He makes a statement on affidavit of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 declined ( 4 ) to receive the notice and inform the petitioner that he will attend only on service of notice through the Court. The affidavit of the petitioner is taken on record (marked “X”). The attitude of respondent No.2 shows that he has no compunction to avoid the legal process nor he on his own made any attempt to contact the counsel for the respondent No. 2 in order to clarify the matter. It is necessary to deprecate such callous attitude on part of the public officers, particularly when the urgent hearing of the petition is likely to be stalled due to obstinate approach of the public officers. 6. Mr. Shelke strenuously argued that in view of “Election Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar & others” AIR 2000 S.C. 2977, intervention at this juncture may not be appropriate. This authority is considered by Division Bench of this Court in “Mayaraju Ghavghave v. Returning Officer and another” 2004 (5) Bom.C.R. 146. The Division Bench held that in appropriate case, the interference with the order of the Returning Officer is permissible when it will subserve and expedite the process of election. In my humble opinion, since it is demonstrated that the entire election is likely to be toppled due to illegal rejection of ( 5 ) nomination paper, then instead of relegating the petitioner to file election petition after the results of elections, it would be time saving and proper to interfere in the process of election even at the middle thereof. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The Returning Officer’s conduct may be brought to the notice of the State Election Commissioner and the Collector, in particular, so as to take appropriate action against him. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 may bring this aspect to the notice of the State Election Commissioner. The nomination form of the petitioner shall be accepted and if it cannot be presently done with urgency, the election for Ward No. 2 shall be postponed suitably. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. 8. The parties may act on copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6594-10