This bench held that failure to sign the verification in Part I of the nomination form constitutes an incomplete submission rather than a defect of substantial character, dismissing the Writ Petitions which sought quashing of rejection.
The Writ Petitions stand dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Writ Petition No.1958/2017 with Writ Petition No.1978/2017 etc.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1958 OF 2017
Sau. Aruna w/o Ankush Shinde ... PETITIONER VERSUS The Returning Officer and others ... RESPONDENTS
Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.1
W I T H
WRIT PETITION NO.1978 OF 2017
Prayagbai w/o Sambhaji More ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State Election Commission and others ... RESPONDENTS
Shri E.P. Sawant, Advocate holding for Shri M.P. Kale, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.1
W I T H
WRIT PETITION NO.1997 OF 2017
Laxman s/o Bhaguji Zine
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The Returning Officer and others ... RESPONDENTS
Writ Petition No.1958/2017 with Writ Petition No.1978/2017 etc.
2
Shri R.V. Gore, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.1
W I T H
WRIT PETITION NO.2049 OF 2017
Madan s/o Sheshrao Shisode
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State Election Commission and others ...
RESPONDENTS
Shri P.P. Dawalkar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2
CORAM: S. B. SHUKRE, J. DATED: 10th February, 2017.
ORAL ORDER :
Writ Petition No.1958/2017 with Writ Petition No.1978/2017 etc.
3
have been signed and submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, it was a case where the nomination papers were accepted by the Returning Officer and at the time of the scrutiny, when nobody has raised any objection, the Returning Officer on his own found out some defect in the nomination forms and proceeded to reject the same on the ground, which is of purely technical nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that, even the Circular of the Election Commission permits such exercise. In support, they refer to Rules 15 and 16 of the Maharashtra Panchayat Samiti Committee Election and Conduct of Election Rules, 1962.
Writ Petition No.1958/2017 with Writ Petition No.1978/2017 etc.
4
nomination form and not defective form, which could have been allowed to be cured at the time of scrutiny by the Returning Officer. He relies upon other view taken by this Court in the case of Baghele Narottam Gendlal Vs. State of Maharashtra &
ors., reported in 2016(4) Mh.L.J. 353 . He further submits that, even though it was not permissible for the Returning Officer to invite attention of the petitioners to the defect, the Returning Officer did in fact bring this fact to the notice of the petitioners, but it was not taken cognizance of by the petitioners.
Writ Petition No.1958/2017 with Writ Petition No.1978/2017 etc.
5
nomination form. If the Part I of the nomination form is incomplete, it would not be a defect and it would only amount to non-submission of the nomination paper. Therefore, this lacuna could not be treated as a defect, within the meaning of Rules 15(2) and 16(3) of the Rules, 1962. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Baghele Narottam Gendlal (supra).
Writ Petition No.1958/2017 with Writ Petition No.1978/2017 etc.
6
was taken by the petitioners. To this, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, there was no reason for the petitioners to have raised any objection in that regard as the petitioners were not aware that any reply was filed by the Returning Officer. It may be true as well, but since there is denial in this regard by the Returning Officer, it would be a disputed question of fact and I do not think, at this stage, that such a question could be appropriately resolved in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.
( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE
fmp/wp1958.17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether failure to sign the verification in Part I of the nomination form amounts to a defect of substantial character or merely an incomplete submission.
Whether the absence of a signature below the verification column constitutes a defect curable at the time of scrutiny or a failure to submit the paper completely.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bappasaheb s/o Rajendra Hawale Vs. The State Election Commission & ors.Distinguished¶3
Bappasaheb s/o Rajendra Hawale Vs. The State Election Commission & ors., Writ Petition No.9428/2012, decided on 20th November 2012
Baghele Narottam Gendlal Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.Explained¶5
Baghele Narottam Gendlal Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2016(4) Mh.L.J. 353 · Who else cites this
Sau. Aruna w/o Ankush Shinde
The Returning Officer
S. B. SHUKRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
