1 wp2159/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2159 OF 2011 Sushila w/o Devidas Ranbawle, Age 33 years, Occupation Sarpanch, Resident of Mazod, Taluka Sengaon, District Hingoli Petitioner V E R S U S 1 The Additional District Collector, Hingoli Respondents 2 Kantabai w/o Kundlik Padghan, Age 35 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Mazod, Taluka Sengaon, District Hingoli 3 A.S. Magar, Aadhyasi Adhikari (Election Officer), Grampanchayat Mazod, Taluka Sengaon, District Hngoli 4 The Gramsevak (Shri Khillari), Grampanchayat Mazod, Taluka Sengaon, District Hingoli 5 Atmaram s/o Kundlik Muley, Age 45 years, Occupation Agriculture 6 Rashidabi w/o Hamid Pathan, Age 40 years, Occupation Agriculture 7 Kondabai w/o Vitthalrao Vaidya, Age 60 years, Occupation Agriculture 8 Tanaji s/o Ramkisan Muley, Age 35 years, Occupation Agriculture 9 Urmila w/o Shivaji Ghogre, Age 33 years, Occupation Agriculture, All resident of Mazod, Taluka Sengaon, District Hingoli 10 The State of Maharashtra, Through Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad Shri G.S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Smt. R.K. Ladda, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 10 Shri N.S. Kadarale, Advocate, holding for Shri M.M. Ambhore, Advocate for respondent No.2 2 wp2159/11 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 12th August, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing and heard finally. 3. This writ petition filed under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the concurrent findings of the authorities below that the petitioner had failed to submit requisite documents along with her nomination-paper for the post of ‘Sarpanch’ of village Mazod, Taluka Sengaon, District Hingoli. The election took place on 21st August, 2010. On the day of election, an Election Officer was appointed for conducting the election. He received two nominations for the post of ‘Sarpanch’, one from the petitioner and other from respondent No. 2. The post of ‘Sarpanch’ for this Gram Panchayat was reserved for scheduled caste woman. The petitioner asserted that she belonged to the scheduled caste. In support of the nomination, she apparently submitted a caste-certificate, issued by the Collector, on 29th May, 2010, and a copy of her application, which she made to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verifying her caste claim is annexed to the petition. In addition, she also submitted an affidavit, in which she stated that in case her caste is not verified within four months, she would vacate the office of Sarpanch. These documents were submitted with her nomination. Respondent No. 2 raised an objection in writing before the Election Officer on the very day that the petitioner’s nomination was wrongly accepted, because she had not submitted requisite documents, as mentioned above. 3 wp2159/11 4. The record shows that the Election Officer then verified the record and found that the requisite documents were filed along with the nomination of the petitioner. The record further shows that after satisfying himself with the completion of the nomination-form, he informed this to respondent No. 2, and in writing, he passed order that respondent No. 2’s objection to the nomination of the petitioner was rejected. On that day, the election took place. Out of nine votes, the petitioner secured six votes and she declared elected. 5. As per the Rules, the Election Officer submitted the report of the election to the concerned officers. Soon thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed appeal under Section 33 (5) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act for challenging the validity of the election. The learned Additional Collector upheld her contention and held that the requisite documents were not submitted along with the nomination of the petitioner. The petitioner then took the matter before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, by filing Appeal No. 68 of 2008, but even the learned Additional Commissioner held that the petitioner had not submitted the requisite documents along with her nomination. 6. The petition is annexed with a copy of the objection filed by respondent No. 2, at page No. 29. This objection was raised in writing by respondent No. 2. The petitioner also submitted a copy at page No. 30 of the order passed by the Election Officer on this objection of respondent No. 2. The contents of these documents are not disputed by the respondents at all. The petitioner, in addition to these documents, annexed to the petition, his caste-certificate dated 29th May, 2010, issued by the Deputy Collector, Hingoli, a xerox-copy of his application submitted before the Tahsildar for sending his caste-claim for scrutiny dated 31st May, 2010 and a copy of the 4 wp2159/11 affidavit in which, as said above, she assured the authorities that in case she would not get her caste-certificate verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee within four months, she would vacate her office. These documents were thus produced along with the nomination. The authorities below, it seems, completely ignored the order of the Election Officer dated 21st August, 2010, at page No. 30, and due to such ignorance, they passed incorrect orders. The petition therefore should succeed. Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner is declared elected subject to provisions of Section 30 1A of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act which requires a successful scheduled-caste candidate to submit within four months a Caste Validity Certificate issued by the competent authority (Scrutiny Committee). ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/2159/11/12/8/11