1 lpa279-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.279/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2159/2011 Smt.Kantabai Kundlik Padghan .. Appellant Versus Sushila W/o Devidas Ranbawle & Ors. ... Respondents .... Mr.M.M.Ambhore,Adv.for appellant. Mr.G.S.Patil,Adv. for Respondent no.1 Mr.K.G.Patil,AGP for respondent-State. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 17TH OCTOBER ,2011 PER COURT 1] Heard. 2] The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the 2 lpa279-11.odt nomination form filed by respondent Sushila Ranbawle ought to have been rejected by the Returning Officer as she did not submit the mandatory documents alongwith the nomination form. The returning officer while submitting the copy of proceedings before the higher authority failed to produce the original record in respect of nomination form and other documents if any. The counsel submits that the order passed by the returning officer on the objection raised by the appellant on 21/8/10, in respect of nomination form of the respondent was undated. The counsel therefore, submits that the conduct of the returning officer raises a doubt in respect of the fact as to whether the nomination form was valid in all respect as stipulated under the law. 3] The learned counsel raised another issue to the effect that the respondent Sushila Ranbawle contested from the open seat though she belongs to a reserved category-Scheduled Caste. In that capacity, the respondent was not entitled to contest from a reserved seat for the post of Sarpanch. 4] The learned A.G.P. has placed before us the record. We have perused the record and the impugned order. We find that alongwith nomination form, the caste certificate is annexed and an undertaking is also filed by respondent-Sushila Ranbawle. It is true that there is no date mentioned on the order passed by the returning officer on the objection petition. The learned 3 lpa279-11.odt counsel for the respondent Sushila submitted that under Rule 13 of the Bombay Village Panchayat elections of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch Act 1958, within 7 days, the returning officer is entitled to submit the proceedings. Accordingly, within 5 days, the returning officer submitted the record. The counsel submits that the caste claim of the respondent Sushila Ranbawle is validated and since yesterday, the respondent has started functioning as Sarpanch. 5] As regards the other issue in respect of competency of the respondent to contest to a reserved seat, the learned counsel has not brought to our notice any provisions disentitling the respondent to contest to a reserved seat. 6] On mere suspicion and doubts raised by the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to interfere into the matter by setting aside election of the respondent Sushila Ranbawle and restraining her to discharge the duties as Sarpanch. 7] We find it appropriate to observe that the learned Collector shall issue instructions to returning officers conducting elections to the post of Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch in respect of strict adherence to the procedure for holding meetings in respect of elections of Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch. Any lapses noticed by the Collector shall be taken seriously. We direct that the Collector, Hingoli district to issue such directions. 4 lpa279-11.odt 8] There is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. Appeal is dismissed. Authenticated copy be given to A.G.P. (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) umg/lpa279-11