{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9799 OF 2010 Vyankatrao s/o Bapurao Naik Petitioner Versus The State Election Commission and two others Respondents Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P for respondent no.3. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 15 th October, 2010 PER COURT: 1 The nomination paper tendered by the petitioner with a view to contest election to the seat of member of village panchayat Yelna, Tq. Mukhed, has been rejected by the Returning Officer observing that the nomination paper does not bear signatures of the candidate. 2 Page nos.17 and 18, which are part of nomination paper, do not bear signatures of the candidates. So far as page no. 17 is concerned, same relates to loan liabilities and particulars in respect of taxes paid by the candidate. The candidate has not signed below the particulars given in the tabular form, whereas his signature does not appear at the place prescribed for recording {2} verification. So far as page no.18 is concerned, which is a part of nomination paper, declaration in respect of the candidate having three or more children alive and any child having been born after 13th December 2000 or 12th September 2001, has not been signed by the candidate. Surprisingly, the Notary has verified the document without ensuring that same is signed by the affiant. It would be advisable that the State shall take note of such actions of the Notary and may initiate appropriate action in that regard. The fact, however, remains that there is no declaration as contemplated by rules annexed along with the nomination paper. 3 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the defect in respect of not putting signature at few places in the prescribed form is not a defect of substantial character and nomination paper cannot be rejected on the same ground. My attention has been invited to the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6475 /2010. It was a case of the candidate, who was an illiterate lady and who had failed to put her thumb impressions at few places on the nomination paper. This Court, while dealing with the matter, has observed that it would be the responsibility of Returning Officer before putting his signature as a token of verification of nomination paper, to ensure that the candidate has put her thumb impressions. The Returning Officer has to take proper care in a case where candidate herself tenders the nomination paper and is an illiterate lady. In the decided matter, the candidate has failed to put her signature below the {3} declaration n respect of character. The Court has observed that there was no objection raised by anybody as regards character of the candidate. Considering the fact that the candidate was an illiterate lady, the Court has observed that it was the responsibility of the Returning Officer, before putting his signature as a token of verification of nomination form, to ensure that the candidate has put her thumb impression at required places. 4 In the instant matter, the candidate is a literate person having put his signature in English language. The deficiency appearing in the nomination paper is also in respect of declaration in the prescribed form in respect of candidate having more than three children alive and the children having been born prior to cut- off date. Although the guidelines prescribe that it would be the responsibility of the Returning Officer to ensure as to whether the candidate has put signature below the nomination paper, the defects pointed out cannot be said to be of a trivial character. My attention is invited to clause 7 of the guidelines issued by the State Election Commission. Paragraph no.7 of the guidelines illustrates the grounds for rejection of nomination paper. One of the reason recorded at Sr.No.`H’ is in respect of filing of declaration/affidavit in the prescribed format within prescribed time limit. In the instant matter, it cannot be disputed that although the blank declaration was got verified from the Notary, however, same does not bear signature of the candidate. The declaration submitted along with the nomination paper, therefore, cannot be said to be a {4} valid declaration, as contemplated by rules. On the date of presentation of nomination paper or during further time allowed under the rules, appropriate declaration was not presented. As such, reasons recorded by the Returning Officer for turning down nomination paper is in accordance with the para meters prescribed by the State Election Commission in respect of rejection of nomination paper. The order passed by the Returning Officer, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous. No interference is required to be caused in the matter in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 5 Writ Petition stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp979910