1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7635 OF 2010 Sou. Sushila w/o Arun Sonwane age 29 years, occ. Household r/o Tadpimpalgaon, Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 The Election Officer for the Election of Group Gram Panchayat Tadpimplagaon/Shevta Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, AGP for the State. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25 th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2 2 Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Returning Officer on 23-8-2010 rejecting nomination paper tendered by her for contesting election to the seat of member of Village Panchayat Tadpimplagaon/Shevta. Petitioner has tendered nomination paper with the Returning Officer on 21-8-2010. Alongwith nomination paper, petitioner tendered caste certificate showing that she belongs to ‘Mali’ caste which is included in OBC category. Petitioner presented her nomination paper for contesting election to the village panchayat as against the seat earmarked for OBC category. At the time of scrutiny, it was found that the name mentioned in the caste certificate is Kalwane Sushila Laxman which differs from the name recorded in nomination paper i.e. Sonawane Sushila w/o Arun. The Returning Officer as such proceeded to reject the nomination pointing out the inconsistencies. It is contended by the petitioner that the caste certificate is issued in her favour in her maiden name. She got married with one Arun Sonawane and as such her changed name after the marriage is recorded in the nomination paper. It is further contended by the petitioner that alongwith nomination paper affidavit was tendered explaining this fact. However, the Returning Officer has overlooked the contents of the affidavit and proceeded to reject the nomination paper. 3 3 The mistake that has occurred is of a formal character and can be corrected by this court while dealing with petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It transpires on perusal of the affidavit as well as caste certificate that name of the petitioner is recorded in the caste certificate as Kalawane Sushila Laxman which is her maiden name whereas the nomination paper has been tendered by the petitioner in her changed name which is result of her marriage with Arun Sonawane. In these circumstances, the error that has occurred needs to be corrected. It is also pointed out by petitioner that in similar circumstances, her cousin sister tendered nomination paper for contesting election from Devgaon Rangri constituency which was accepted by the Returning Officer. Applying the principal of parity, the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner also needs to be directed to be accepted. 4 For the reasons recorded above, petition deserves favourable consideration. Order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting nomination paper of the petitioner on 23-8-2010 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The Returning Officer is directed to accept the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner and permit her to participate in the election. Rule is accordingly made absolute. 4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 5 It is informed that the Returning Officer is present in the court and he would take appropriate measures in pursuance to the directions issued in this petition. 6 Authentic copy of this order be supplied to the parties. 7 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb/wp7635.10.odt