1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4273 of 2009 ( Mahadeo s/o Gangadhar Kamley ..vs.. Returning Officer, Ramtek Legislative Constituency and ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. N.W. Sambre, G.P. with Mr. P.D. Kothari, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 8 th October, 2009 1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Returning Officer on 3 rd October, 2009, rejecting petitioner’s objection to display at proper place his name in the ballot paper and the list of candidates, who were in the fray after the date of withdrawal. 2. The respondent No.2 Ashish Nandakumar Jaiswal filed nomination paper as candidate for Shiv Sena Party. In the nomination paper filed by him, he had mentioned his name as “Ashish Nandakumar Jaiswal”, though his name in the electoral roll 2 is “Jaiswal Ashish Nandakumar”. The petitioner is a candidate for Bahujan Samaj Party and his name is “Kamley Mahadeo Gangadhar”. 3. There is no dispute that names of candidates have to be listed in alphabetical order in Marathi in the ballot paper. Therefore, according to the petitioner, since alphabet “ ” comes before “ ” in Marathi, the respondent’s name should come after his name in the ballot paper. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since most of the voters are not proficient with electronic voting machines, he apprehends that people could be told they have push the first button first in order to start the machine, and then vote, in which case a large number of votes would go to Ashish Nandakumar Jaiswal, whose name appears at the top. 4. He further points out that the Returning Officer had published in the newspaper on 30 th September, 2009 a list of candidates, who were in the fray and in that list at Sr. No.1 the name “Jaiswal Ashish Nandakumar” is published and not as “Ashish Nandakumar Jaiswal”. He pointed out in spite of fact that the Returning Officer had displayed the name correctly in the notice, he had placed the candidate in the wrong alphabetical order. 3 This lapse was further confounded while printing the ballot papers in which the name of Ashish Nandakumar Jaiswal is at the top, including his profession “Vakil”. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the Handbook for the candidates, the candidates have been instructed that they should give their names in the nomination paper as it is entered in the electoral roll. Therefore, according to him, if the candidates are required to fill their names in the nomination papers as entered in the electoral roll, the list of candidates drawn up on the basis of such nomination paper should also contain the names as they appear in the electoral roll. Therefore, according to him, the Returning Officer has wrongly rearranged the name of respondent No.2 Jaiswal Ashish Nandakumar to give him an advantage over other candidates. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that since the candidate had given his names in the nomination paper as Ashish Nandakumar Jaiswal, it was so reflected in the list of candidates in the fray after withdrawal of nominations and that there was no intention on the part of the respondents to give any advantage to any candidate. He submitted that there is no rule, which requires as to how the 4 names should be written in the ballot paper and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Returning Officer. He pointed out that the election programme has progressed substantially, ballot papers are printed, electronic voting machines have been programmed and therefore, even if there is some small lapse, the clock cannot be set back now. 7. The Returning Officer as also the Election Commissioner would consider that even these small things may matter and therefore, they should follow a standard practice as to how names are to be written and best practice would obviously be to pick up the name as it appears in the electoral roll. It is unfortunate that the Returning Officer did not take a note of objection of the petitioner and consider it in proper light as per rules. However since the election programme has made substantial progress and since the question raised is not of such a nature as to vitiate the whole election, the petition is dismissed. Judge. adgokar