1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7710 OF 2010 Latabai w/o Dayanand Bangar, age: 36 years, Occ: Household, R/o Bangarwadi, Post Yermala, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 The Election Commission, State of Maharashtra, Fort, Mumbai. 3 The Tahsildar/Taluka Election Officer, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. 4 The Returning Officer, Bangarwadi Grampanchayat Election, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 5 Latabai w/o Balaji Bangar, age: 30 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Bangarwadi, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. Respondents Mr.V.M.Humbe, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 3 & 4. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate for Respondent No.5. 2 CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 26 th August, 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 The petitioner raises challenge to the order dated 23.08.2010 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting nomination paper of the petitioner. 3 It is contended that the impugned order passed by the Returning Officer is non speaking one. Rule 12 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, mandates recording of reasons by the Returning Officer while rejecting the nomination paper. 4 I have perused the impugned order passed by the Returning Officer. The order, on the face of it, appears to be unsustainable being in contravention of Rule 12 of the Rules. 5 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice the judgment in the matter of Mayaraju Ghavghave Vs. Returning Officer & another, reported in 2004 3 (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 29th July, 2010. In view of the law laid down by this Court, this is a fit case wherein interference is required to be caused. 6 In this view of the matter, writ petition shall have to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Returning Officer on 23.08.2010 rejecting the nomination paper presented by the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The Returning Officer is directed to accept the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner and permit her to participate in the election process. The Returning Officer is also directed to allot symbol to the petitioner for facilitating her to participate in the process of election. 7 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. 4 8 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/wp771010