1 WP No.84230/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8420 OF 2010 SUBHASH BABURAO TATHE AND ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Temkar Rajendra K. AGP for Respondent 1: Mr.VH Dighe. Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mrs.Madhubala Gangwal Advocate for Respondent 5 : Mr. ST Shelke ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 24th NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Affidavit of Respondent No.5 is tendered, copy thereof received by Mr.Temkar and counsel for Respondent No.2. 2) Report of inquiry conducted by learned Secretary (CAD) Shri CS Modak, dated 22.11.2011, against Shri MP Khade and Shri VF More, whose conduct was criticized by this Court, reflected in the order dated 18.10.2011, is received in a closed envelope. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3) Perused the Maharashtra Management of 2 WP No.84230/2010 Irrigation Systems By Farmers Rules, 2006 (Election Rules). Annexure-2 thereof deals with conduct of elections. Part 1 informs appointment of Competent Authority, Election Officer, Assistant Election Officer and their duties. Rule 5 thereof provides for disposal of claims and objections to be carried by the Election Officer, who will serve a notice to the claimant for his claim; to the objector for his objections; and to the concerned Canal Officer for submitting his report within a period of seven days of the receipt of the notice regarding the matter under dispute. Rule 3 deals with preparation of voters list. Rule 4 conceive forms of claims and objections. Rule 6 contemplates inclusion of names inadvertently omitted and deletion of names of dead electors and persons who are not entitled to be registered. Then Rule 7 informs of final publication of roll. Thus, a comprehensive scheme/procedure is promulgated in the schedule for conducting the elections. 4) It is apparent, in the instant case, the objections raised by the petitioner were not properly entertained by the Competent Authority and no reasons are assigned by the Appellate Authority. 3 WP No.84230/2010 5) Mr.Temkar submits his objections are still in force, which deserve to be entertained and dealt with by the Competent Authority or Appellate Authority. 6) Learned AGP, on instructions from Mr. Khade (Respondent No.5) , submits that the objections raised by the petitioner will be dealt with in accordance with the procedure/guidelines prescribed, by giving appropriate hearing to the writ petitioner and the Election Officer would pass appropriate orders on its own merits in that regard. 7) If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the Election Officer, needless to indicate, he has his remedies before the Appellate Authority. 8) In the above scenario and particularly considering the affidavit in reply of Respondent No.4, the order under challenge is set aside. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. The Election Officer, naturally will give hearing to the writ petitioner. 9) On instructions, Mr.Temkar for the petitioner does not press for any action against the newly added respondent No.5, including 4 WP No.84230/2010 imposition of costs or its deposit by him. 10) In the light of the statement, the earlier orders and directions dated 18th October, 2011 are re-called. The amount, if deposited, be reimbursed to the parties concerned. 11) The Inquiry Report referred above is accepted and no further action against those two officers to be initiated. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/