1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9677 OF 2010 Smt.Daiwashala w/o Raghunath Chonde Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr. S.R.Choukidar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 & 2. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 13 th October, 2010. P.C.: 1 The nomination paper tendered by the petitioner with a view to contest election to the seat of member of village panchayat has been turned down by the Returning Officer in view of the order passed on 11.10.2010. 2 There are three seats available from Ward No.3. As per the election program, out of three seats, two seats are earmarked for open category, whereas, one seat is reserved for woman belonging to Other Backward Class category. Petitioner has tendered her nomination paper from amongst Women 2 (General) category. Obviously, the nomination paper has been turned down for the reason that there is no such reservation provided as per the program of election. 3 It is the contention of petitioner that nomination paper tendered by her shall have to be considered from amongst (General) category in the absence of there being any reservation provided for Women (General) category. 4 The argument cannot be accepted for the reason that the defect appearing in the nomination paper is of substantial character. 5 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to place reliance on the judgment in the matter of Ram Awadesh Singh Vs. Smt.Sumitra Devi & others, reported in AIR 1972 SC 580, and contended that the defect appearing in the nomination paper shall be considered as not of substantial character. 6 The argument cannot be accepted for the reason that in the reported matter, defect appearing in the nomination paper was as regards mis-description as to electoral roll number of the candidate or of the proposer in the nomination paper, which, the Apex Court considered to be inadvertent mistake and ruled that such lapse is liable to be condoned. 3 7 Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the matter of Jyoti Sanjay Walke & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2008 (5) Bom. C.R. 674. However, facts in the reported matter are different and ratio laid down in the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of instant case. 8 For the reasons recorded above, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance. 9 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp967710