:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 29 OF 2008 Shri Shriram B Sonawane ...Petitioner Versus Rajendra Bhosale and Ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, Adv. for the petitioners. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP for respondent nos.4 and 6. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 15TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The office report shows that all respondents are served. The AGP appears for Respondent nos.2, 4 and 6. The Respondent nos.1 and 5 are the contesting candidates. None appears for them although they are served. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent. 3. The Election Petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Election :2: :2: :2: Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik only on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the allegation that the Returned candidate Rajendra Laxman Bhosale did not belong to the Economically Backward Class (EBC) to which category, the Election was held. 4. The subject election is for the Board of Directors of Malegaon Merchant Co-operative Bank Limited, Malegaon and specifically to the category or constituency of Economically Backward Classes (EBC) Nominees. The petitioner contested the Elections alongwith Respondent no.1 and 5. Respondent no.1 won the elections whereas the others including the petitioners lost. 5. The issue raised by the petitioner is that the First Respondent had filed a false Affidavit with regard his Income. He does not satisfy the criteria of Annual Income, being less than Rs.13,500/-. The Certificate/Dakhla produced from the Tahsildar’s office was subject matter of challenge before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Malegaon and that certificate has been cancelled by an order passed by the Sub-Divisional :3: :3: :3: officer, Malegaon on 2.9.2006. Once the order passed by the Sub-Divisional officer is in place and it was also produced on record, no reliance could have been placed on the Certificate of the Tahsildar, is the submission. 6. An Affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the concerned respondents of the Naib Tahsildar (Elections), so also, the Naib Tahsildar in the Divisional Commissioner’s office. Each one of them do not dispute that the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order cancelling the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar is indeed on record. Its effect on the proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner therefore ought to have been examined. Whether the Tahsildar’s Certificate, which is produced on the date when the nomination paper was filed, continues to be valid and can be relied upon even when the Election Petition is decided and whether the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order being placed on record, no reliance can be placed on the Tahsildar’s Certificate are matters which require scrutiny at the hands of the Divisional Commissioner. A perusal of the impugned order shows that he has not adverted to these :4: :4: :4: aspects at all. On the other hand he has relied upon the Certificate of the Tahsildar as is clear from the discussion on Point Nos.3 and 5. 7. In such circumstances, the order dismissing the Election Petition is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The Election Dispute is restored to the file of the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division. He is directed to hear Election Petition No.1 of 2005 afresh without being influenced by the impugned order or the observations therein. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs. sd/- *********