1 wp 7468.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7468 OF 2011 Smt. Mathurabai W/o Madhavrao Mali, Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Vichkheda, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy Director, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon. 2. Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. The Returning Officer, Vividha Karayakari Co-operative Society Vichkheda, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. The Secretary, Vividha Karayakari Co-operative Society Vichkheda, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. 5. Sudhakar S/o Daulatrao Patil, Age : Major, Occu. : Agril., R/o Vichkheda, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondents 2 wp 7468.11 Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 04TH OCTOBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner had filled in her nomination paper for the election as a member of respondent No. 4/Society. The present respondent No. 5 took objection to the said nomination paper on the ground that the signature of the seconder on the said nomination paper is forged. The Returning Officer rejected the said nomination paper. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 3. Shri P. B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Returning Officer could not have rejected the nomination form on the ground that the signature of the seconder is forged, more particularly when the said seconder had never raised any objection that he has not signed the said 3 wp 7468.11 nomination paper as a seconder. The learned counsel further contends that in appeal the said seconder has filed an affidavit admitting that the signature on the nomination form as a seconder is a genuine signature. This aspect should have been considered. 4. Shri Barde, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 supports the orders and states that on the face of it the specimen signature produced on record by the respondent No. 5 of the said seconder was different than the signature appearing in the nomination form. The same could be viewed by the naked eye. The Returning Officer on arriving at subjective satisfaction had rejected the nomination form which is proper. 5. In normal circumstances, this Court would not have entertained the writ petition as the voting is to take place on 9 th October, 2011. Some time has been lost in getting the copy from the Appellate Authority and serving the respondents. The ground on which the nomination form is rejected is absolutely erroneous. When the seconder had never raised any objection that the signature on the nomination form is forged, then the respondent No. 5 could not have raised such an objection and 4 wp 7468.11 even if such an objection is raised in absence of any doubt created by the seconder himself, the Returning Officer could not have come to the conclusion that the said signature is forged, more particularly without allowing the parties to adduce the evidence. The forgery could not have been established without an evidence been led, more particularly, when a third party was raising an objection and not the seconder himself. The said controversy does not remain as seconder himself has come forward and filed an affidavit before the Appellate Authority that the signature on the said nomination form of seconder is his genuine signature. 6. In the light of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The nomination was rejected only on the ground that the signature of the seconder is forged and no other defect was pointed out in the said nomination form. As such, the nomination paper of the petitioner for the election of the respondent No. 4/Society shall be accepted and his name shall be enrolled in the list of contesting candidates. Rule is accordingly made absolute. Parties to act upon authentic copy. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11