1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7659 OF 2010 Gayabai w/o Tukaram Bailkar age 47 years, occ. Household r/o Mugaon, Tq. Naigaon Dist. Nanded. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State Election Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 2 The Election Officer, B.D. Nandgaonkar For the elections of village Grampanchayat Mugaon, Tq. Naigaon Dist. Nanded. .. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7660 OF 2010 Devidas s/o Venkati Kokane age 32 years, occ. Agriculture r/o Mugaon, Tq. Naigaon Dist. Nanded. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State Election Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 2 The Election Officer, B.D. Nandgaonkar 2 For the elections of village Grampanchayat Mugaon, Tq. Naigaon Dist. Nanded. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.J. Salunke, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.T. Shelke , advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25 th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties the petitions are taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Both the petitioners are raising challenge to the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers presented by them for contesting the election for the seat of member of village panchayat Mugaon, Tq. Naigaon. 4 Petitioner in Writ Petition no. 7660/2010 presented his nomination paper on 20-8-2010 for contesting election for the seat of member of village 3 panchayat from the category of backward class of citizens. Petitioner in said petition claims that he belongs to ‘Dhangar’ caste. Alongwith nomination paper, the petitioner tendered copy of the application tendered to the scrutiny committee for verification of caste claim. It transpires that the application was tendered to the scrutiny committee on 12-8-2010. Copy of the covering letter alongwith copy of the application tendered to the scrutiny committee in prescribed proforma is annexed to the petition. It is stated that the petitioner has also tendered undertaking as required by law. . So far as petitioner in Writ Petition no. 7659/2010 is concerned, she presented her nomination paper on 21-8-2010 for contesting election to the seat of member of village panchayat Mugaon, Tq. Naigaon from amongst scheduled caste women’s category. Petitioner in said petition claims that she belongs to ‘Mang’ caste which is included in the category of scheduled caste. Petitioner also tendered copy of the application tendered to the scrutiny committee for the purpose of verification of her caste claim. The application is stated to have been tendered on 10-8-2010. 5 In both the cases, the Returning Officer proceeded to reject the nomination paper on the ground that the concerned petitioners have not 4 submitted proof in respect of presentation of application seeking verification of caste claim to the scrutiny committee. The reason recorded by the Returning Officer appears to be factually incorrect. The Returning Officer appears to have rejected the nomination paper without verification of the papers presented before him. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the provisions of Maharashtra Ordinance No. V of 2009 issued on 9 th June, 2010. Section 2 of amending Ordinance provides for a suitable amendment to section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. Provisions of Ordinance lay down requirement in respect of presentation of true copy of application tendered by the candidate to the scrutiny committee for issuance of validity certificate or any other proof of having made such application to the scrutiny committee and an undertaking that he shall submit within a period of four months from the date of election, the validity certificate issued by the scrutiny committee. In the instant matters, on perusal of record it transpires that the petitioners have complied with the conditions laid down under the Ordinance. The Returning Officer has committed error in rejecting the nomination papers tendered by both the petitioners. As such, the order passed by the Returning Officer needs to be quashed and set aside. 5 6 Both the petitions thus stand allowed. Order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting nomination papers of both the petitioners shall stand quashed and set aside and it is further directed to the Returning Officer to accept the nomination papers tendered by both the petitioners and permit them to participate in the process of election. 7 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb/wp7659.10.odt