1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 427/2009 (Ishwar Balaji Shende Vs. Asstt. Registrar, Coop. So. & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 5 th MAY, 2009. Heard Shri Dubey for the petitioner, and Shri Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondent no.1 on 16/1/2009 in an appeal under Section 152A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, setting aside the order of the Election Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent no.4 to the petition. In October, 2008, the elections to the Board of Directors of the respondent no.3- Society were declared. The respondent no.2 was appointed as the Election Officer on 6th of October, 2008 for holding the elections. The Election Programme was declared on 15/12/2008 and for 13 posts of Directors on the Board of Directors of the respondent no.3- Society, the nomination forms were submitted by the contestants on 1/1/2009. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.4 filed the nominations from 2 the category of persons falling below poverty line. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was done on 5/1/2009. The respondent no.2, the Election Officer, rejected the nomination form of the respondent no.4 on the ground that it was not accompanied by the certificate showing that he belonged to the category of “below poverty line”. The respondent no. 4 preferred an appeal against the rejection of the nomination paper before the respondent no.1 under Section 152A of the Act. The Assistant Registrar, by the impugned order dated 16/1/2009 allowed the appeal and directed the Election Officer to accept the nomination form of the respondent no.4. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 16/1/2009 by this instant writ petition. Shri Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent no.1 was not justified in allowing the appeal on the ground that the respondent no.4 produced the original certificate before the respondent no.1 for perusal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was necessary for the respondent no.4 to submit the `Below Poverty Line Certificate’ at the time of filing of the nomination paper. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could not have been submitted at a later point of time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is extremely unjust and improper and is liable to be interfered with. Shri D.B. Patel, the learned Addition Government Pleader, who appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, submitted that from a 3 perusal of the documents, it is apparent that the respondent no.4 had submitted the necessary certificate before the Election Officer, at the time of filing of the nomination paper and the respondent no.4 had not produced the Income Certificate. The learned Assistant Government Pleader then submitted that the original document was also produced before the respondent no.1 by the respondent no.4 for perusal and the respondent no.1 found on a perusal of the same that the Election Officer should have permitted the respondent no.4 to contest the election on a post which was earmarked for the Economically Backward Class candidate. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the relevant documents annexed to the petition. It appears from a perusal of the Election Programme that it was necessary for the contestants to produce `Below Poverty Line Certificate’, if they desired to contest on a post reserved for the Economically Backward Class candidate. It appears that the Election Officer rejected the nomination form of the respondent no.4 on the ground that he had not produced the Income Certificate. The respondent no. 4 immediately informed the Election Officer as well as the respondent no.1 that he had submitted the `Below Poverty Line Certificate’ at the time of filing of the nomination paper, and it was necessary for the authorities to permit him to contest the election as there was no deficiency while submitting 4 the nomination form. Since nothing was done in the matter, the respondent no.4 filed an appeal under Section 152A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, before the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 perused the original certificate which was produced by the respondent no.4 before the authority, to show that he belonged to the Economically Backward Class. The respondent no.1, therefore, directed the Election Officer to accept the nomination form of the respondent no.4. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent no.1 erred in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.4. The elections were scheduled on 1st of February, 2009 and the respondent no.4 had also contested in the said election. Since the respondent no.4 had submitted the Below Poverty Line Certificate and since there was nothing in the Rules to show that the Income Certificate was also required to be produced, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 16/1/2009 in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP