wp695.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.695 OF 2011 Shankar s/o Bhagwan Ambhore, Age-44 years, Occu:Service R/o- C/o- Dhankuwar Mahavidyalaya, Deulgaon Raja Road, Jalna, Dist-Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Through its Registrar, 2) Registrar & Returning Officer Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, 3) Mr. Khandare V.B. Age-42 years, Occu:Lecturer(Economics) R/o- C/o- Principal, Aasaramji Bhandwaldar Arts, Commerce & Science College, Deogaon Rangari, Tq-Kannad, Dist-Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. B.L. Sagar-Killarikar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. S.N. Rodge Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... wp695.11 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Petitioner filed nomination to the seat of Board of Studies (Economics) of the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University. The election programme was declared on 31st December, 2010. The last date for filing nomination paper was 19th January, 2011. The scrutiny of nomination paper was to be done on 19th January, 2011 and the list of validly nominated candidates was to be published on the same day i.e. 19th January, 2011. According to the election programme the last date wp695.11 3 for withdrawal of nomination was 23rd January, 2011. The final list of contesting candidates was to be published on 23rd January, 2011. The elections are to be held on 13th February, 2011. 3. The Petitioner's contention is that his name was published on 19th January, 2011 in the list of validly nominated candidates for the election to the Board of Studies (Economics) to be constituted under Section 37(b) (2) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. In the list dated 19th January 2011, against the name of the Petitioner, there was endorsement that "VALID (Subject to verification to Approval)". The documents for verification were to be submitted to the Election Office on or before 22nd January, 2011 upto 04.00 p.m. The Petitioner contends that accordingly the documents for verification were submitted. The final list of contesting candidates was published on 23rd January, 2011. As the Petitioner did not find his name in the said list, wp695.11 4 he enquired with the Authorities and it was found that his nomination was rejected on the objection filed by Respondent No.3 herein. 4. Shri. Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that order of rejection of nomination was passed without notice to the Petitioner. There was no stage prescribed in the election programme to raise objections. The Petitioner, on merits, was eligible and competent to contest the election and there was no deficiency attached in his nomination. 5. We have heard the submissions advanced by Shri. Suryawanshi, learned counsel appearing for the University and Shri. Rodge, the learned counsel for Respondent No.3. 6. Without entering into merits of the claim of the Petitioner and objections raised by the Respondent No.3, we observe, in the facts of wp695.11 5 the case, that the Returning Officer shall hear the Petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the objections raised by the Respondent No.3. 7. We are convinced that the basic principles of natural justice in respect of the Petitioner have been violated. There is sufficient time for the elections to be held. Considering all these facts and circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting nomination paper of the Petitioner. 8. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting nomination paper of the Petitioner, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Returning Officer. We direct the Returning Officer to hear the Petitioner. The Petitioner is entitled to file written reply/statement before the Returning Officer. Both, the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 wp695.11 6 shall remain present before the Returning Officer on 3rd February 2011, at 11.00 a.m. It is clarified that the Returning Officer shall deal with the issue in respect of maintainability of the objection filed by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner after the date of scrutiny is over and the competency of the Petitioner to file nomination, apart from the other issues raised, if any. 9. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. 10. Authenticated copy of this order be provided to the parties. The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of the order. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp695.11