1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5006 OF 2010. (ASHOK SUGDEO HATKAR..VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.). Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Kalyani Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Subhash Paliwal, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 27, 2010. Heard. Objection raised to nomination paper by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Returning Officer on 06.10.2010. That rejection is questioned on the ground that mutually inconsistent reasons are recorded by the Returning Officer, that in election programme no specific schedule for scrutiny was given and hence, it cannot be said that the scrutiny of nomination form of respondent No.4 was already over. Attention is invited to reply affidavit filed by the Deputy Collector (Returning Officer) to show that he has given third reason that the objection was not accompanied by any document to substantiate it. The contention is, thus, the scrutiny of merits of the said objection is also sought to be pressed into service to support the impugned order. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment reported in Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. 2 Gordhandas Bhanji, reported at AIR 1952 SC 16 to urge that the reasons cannot be supported by such an affidavit and the reasons recorded on 06.10.2010 are not relevant in so far as rejection is concerned. It is also argued that the stands of respondent No.3 Returning Officer and respondent No.4 candidate in this respect are again inconsistent with each other. Respondent No.4 has urged that as objection was not accompanied by necessary documents it has been rightly rejected. Advocate Shri Paliwal for respondent No.4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No.1 to 3 have supported the impugned order. The affidavit filed by respondent No.4 no-doubt shows that there were no documents filed along with the objection raised by the petitioner to show that respondent No.4 was defaulter. The reply filed by respondent No.3 reveals that the said objection was received after scrutiny of nomination form of respondent No.4 was over and it was also not accompanied by any document to show that respondent No.4 was / is defaulter. The impugned order passed on nomination paper on 06.10.2010 does not disclose this reason of absence of documentary evidence in support of the objection raised. It mentions that the objection received cannot be looked into as per the provisions of Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 1971. In second paragraph it is added that the scrutiny was already over. 3 I do not find any contradiction in this order dated 06.10.2010. The Returning Officer has, in first paragraph, recorded that as per Rule 23 objection could not be looked into and that has been clarified by indicating that the scrutiny was already over when objection was received. Hence, the order gives only one reason for rejecting the objection. The contention that there was no schedule framed by the Returning Officer while indicating the scrutiny is also without any substance because the time of starting of scrutiny has been given in election programme itself and the scrutiny accordingly started from 11.00 a.m. on 06.10.2010. The Returning Officer has scrutinized various nomination forms turn by turn and when the petitioner tendered his objection the scrutiny of nomination paper of respondent No.4 was already over. No case for interference is made out. With liberty to the petitioner to take further appropriate steps, accordingly to law, the present petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE RR..