1 wp950.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 950 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 951 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 952 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 953 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 954 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 955 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 956 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 957 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 958 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 970 OF 2011 ..... Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.J. Ghute, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Hon, Advocate for respective respondent no.3. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 18th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The order passed by the appellate authority namely Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 31st January, 2011 directing the respondent no.2-Returning Officer to accept the nomination papers is questioned by petitioners. Only contention is, the nomination papers submitted by the respective respondent no. 3 in this Petitions has not been sold by the Returning Officer. In other words, the form of said nomination papers is privately arranged for, by the concerned candidates. 2 wp950.11 2. It is not in dispute that the respective respondent no.3 attempted to tender the said nomination papers duly filled in within stipulated time and it was not accepted. They therefore approached the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and sought writ against election officer to accept it. This Court treated that non- acceptance of nomination papers as its rejection and permitted the respondent no.3 to file appeal under Section 152-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Accordingly, the appeals in the shape of representations were filed and after hearing the Returning Officer and the respondent no.3 those appeals have been allowed and directions have been issued to the Returning Officer to accept those nomination papers. Thereafter, nomination papers have been accepted, symbols are alloted, ballot papers prepared and poling is due on 20.02.2011. 3. Mr. Deshmukh for petitioners points out that out of total 30 nomination papers sold by the respondent no.2, 10 were filled in by petitioners before this Court. Those nomination papers were admittedly printed by the respondent no.3 for the purpose of election and found valid. Therefore, he has relied upon Rule 56-X of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 to urge that as for 10 seats, there were only 10 candidates, the result ought to have been declared unopposed. In the alternative and without prejudice, he points out that the petitioners had opposed the matter before the Division Bench and the respondent no.3 was aware that the petitioners are challenging their candidature. Inspite of this the petitioners were not added as party in appeal before the respondent no.1 and hence the petitioners have not been heard. He invites attention to specific stand of respondent no.2 that nomination papers attempted to be submitted by the respective 3 wp950.11 respondent no.3 were not pertaining to election process undertaken by him and were not sold by him. He further argues that this specific contention is overlooked by the respondent no.1 and only because nomination papers submitted by the respondent no.3 are in prescribed proforma, same have been accepted. Thus according to the learned Counsel there is refusal to exercise jurisdiction. He further states that as no disputed questions are involved and as interference by this Court at this stage will subserve the election process, appropriate action needs to be taken and impugned order directing acceptance of nomination papers need to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned A.G.P. for respondent is supporting the impugned order. He points out that the nomination papers submitted by the respective respondent no.3 are found to be in proper form by appellate authority and hence they have been permitted to contest the election. 5. Advocate Mr. Hon for respondent contends that as total 30 nomination papers were sold by respondent no.2, contest was inevitable. He further states that the contention that nomination papers submitted by the respective respondent no.3 were not sold by the respondent no.2 is based only upon the serial numbers allegedly given to each nomination papers. According to him that serial number is given in hand- writing by respondent no.2 and 3. Three forms submitted by respondent no.3 in present matters contain that serial numbers. He further points out that before the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners(present respondent no. 3) have specifically stated that one Shalikram Kashinath Kolhe had 4 wp950.11 purchased 15 nomination forms and the nomination papers submitted by them were from amongst that lot. He therefore argues that the submission of the respondent no.2 that the said nomination papers are not printed by him, is misconceived and in any case, it only raises disputed questions of facts. 6. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court reported at "2006(6) Bom.C.R. 303" (Geeta Shirish Chaudhari V/s State of Maharashtra & others), to urge that when acceptance of nomination papers is the issue, the High Court can not interfere because it only permits the person to contest the election. 7. After hearing the respective Counsel, learned A.G.P. was asked to point out how many nomination papers were got printed by the respondent no.2-Returning Officer. Unfortunately, there is no record of the same and learned A.G.P. upon instructions informed accordingly. He states that 30 nomination papers were sold and cost of each was Rs. 20/-. However, again for each nomination papers sold there is no counter foil. If the serial numbers on each nomination is required to be put by hand, it itself is a serious lacuna prima facie, which may give rise to several disputed questions. In the present matter, at least now it can be said that the respondent no.2 has not taken necessary precaution to see that elections are unbiased and impartial affair. 8. Fact show that total 30 nomination papers are sold and only 10 have been submitted within time. The respective respondent no. 3 also attempted to submit their nomination papers then the same were not accepted/allowed to be filed by pointing out that they 5 wp950.11 were not sold by the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer after giving necessary opportunity to hear, could have rejected the nomination papers after giving reasons for his stand that those nomination papers were not sold by him. Strangely he did not accept filing itself. The Division bench of this Court has found that the said act tantamount to rejection of nomination papers and permitted the respondent no.3 to file statutory appeal and that statutory appeal has been heard by the appellate court and same came to be allowed. The question therefore is whether the nomination papers filled in by the respondent no.3 pertains to the election process or not. Here as on today there are only 10 candidates in fray if these nomination papers are ignored. In other words, there will be no election. When 30 nomination papers were sold by the respondent no.2, the present situation can not be accepted as reflecting true and correct position, at least at this stage. It only shows that the several disputed questions arise and same can not be looked into and resolved by this Court in this jurisdiction. I therefore find no case made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Petitions are therefore rejected. In the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs. 9. Needless to mention that the party aggrieved by acceptance of nomination is at liberty to approach competent forum under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 after the elections are over. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp950.10