1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7784 OF 2010 Mandabai Ramchandra Jaitmal age 65 years, occ. Agriculture r/o Bojgaon, Post Relgaon Tq. Sillod Dist. Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 The State Election Commission of Maharashtra Through Chief Election Commissioner Mumbai. 3 The Returning Officer For the Election of Group Gram Panchayat Jalki Ghat, Bojgaon, Post Relgaon Tq. Sillod Dist. Aurangabad. 4 The Collector Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. D.P. Palodkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, AGP for the State. Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent no. 2. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 27 th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 2 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Nomination papers presented by the petitioner with a view to contest the elections for the seat of member of village panchayat Jalki Ghat, Bojgaon, Tq. Sillod came to be rejected on the date prescribed for scrutiny of nomination papers i.e. 23-8-2010. 4 Petitioner presented two separate nomination papers with a view to contest election from ward nos. 1 and 3 and both the nomination papers presented by the petitioner were turned down for the reason that acknowledgment in respect of tendering proposal for securing verification of the status claim by the office of the Collector does not bear the seal of the office. The ground stated while rejecting the nomination papers by the Returning Officer is not proper and justifiable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that the proposal submitted by him to the Collector has already been received by the office of Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad on 31-5-2010. The name of the petitioner appears 3 at sr. no. 390 in the list of proposals transmitted to the office of the Scrutiny Committee. The grounds stated by the Returning Officer for rejecting nomination papers tendered by the petitioner therefore are unsustainable. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the judgment in the matter of Mayaraju Ghavghave Vs. Returning Officer & another reported in 2004 (5) Bom.C.R. 146 and contended that in appropriate cases, even against rejection of nomination paper, the indulgence shown by the Court subserves the progress of election thereby facilitating completion of the election and such interference would not amount to calling in question the election. Reliance is placed on the observations made in para 27 and 32 of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court. The said judgment of the Division Bench has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the matter of Baburao s/o Dattarao Budhwant Vs. The State Election Commission & another ( Writ Petition no. 6594 of 2010) decided on 29 th July, 2010. In view of the law laid down by this Court, this is a fit case wherein interference is required to be caused. 6 Petition presented by the petitioner therefore deserves to be allowed 4 and the same is accordingly allowed. Order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting nomination papers tendered by the petitioner with a view to contest election from ward nos. 1 and 3 stands quashed and set aside. Both nomination papers tendered by the petitioner shall be accepted and he shall be allotted symbol with a view to facilitate him to participate in the process of election. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 7 Authentic copy of the order be supplied to the parties. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb/wp7784.10.odt