1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7699 OF 2010 Pirabai Chandu Gaikwad, age: 62 years, Occ: Household, R/o Hibbat, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Nanded. 2 The Returning Officer for the Election of Village Panchayat, Hibbat, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded/Election Commission. 3 Ranjit Pandurang Narbage, age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Hibbat, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded. Respondents Mr.D.M.Shinde, advocate holding for Mr.S.S.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.Subhash Munde, advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 26 th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard Shri D.M.Shinde, learned Counsel holding for 2 Mr.S.S.Patil, advocate for the petitioner, Shri N.N.Jadhav, learned A.G.P. For Respondent No.1, Shri S.T.Shelke, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and Shri Subhash Mundhe, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 3 The order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner is subjected to challenge in this petition. 4 The petitioner tendered her nomination paper with a view to contest election to the seat of a member of village panchayat Hibbat, Tq. Mukhed, from amongst Scheduled Caste category. Along with the nomination paper, the petitioner tendered caste certificate as well as the receipt as regards tendering of her status claim to the Scrutiny Committee. An objection was raised by Respondent No.3 contending that the petitioner has not tendered necessary documents to support her status claim along with the nomination paper. On consideration of the objection raised by the objector, the Returning Officer has proceeded to reject the nomination paper observing that apart from caste certificate and the receipt, other documents supporting the status claim are not tendered along with the nomination paper. 3 5 I have perused the annexures annexed to the petition as well as impugned order passed by the Returning Officer. Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act mandates presentation of caste certificate along with the nomination paper. The provisions of the Ordinance prescribe that the candidate presenting nomination paper for contesting election to the Village Panchayat, which are to be held prior to December 2010, shall have to present a proof regarding tendering of an application to the Scrutiny Committee for the purposes of verification of caste claim along with the nomination paper. It appears that the petitioner has complied with the conditions laid down in Section 10-1A as well as the conditions laid down in the Amending Act which have been brought into force by virtue of the Ordinance issued by the State in that regard. The rejection of nomination paper by the Returning Officer, on the face of it, is illegal and oppose to the provisions of law. 6 Learned Counsel appearing 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 4 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 29th July, 2010. In view of the law laid down by this Court, this is a fit case wherein interference is required to be caused. 7 In this view of the matter, writ petition shall have to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Returning Officer on 23.08.2010 rejecting the nomination paper presented by the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The Returning Officer is directed to accept the nomination paper tendered by the petitioner and permit herto participate in the election process. The Returning Officer is also directed to allot symbol to the petitioner for facilitating her to participate in the process of election. 9 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. 10 Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court, be supplied to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp769910