Allowed

Sangita Govind Baywad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Jan 2021WP/18/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding election nomination rejection, the High Court held that rejecting the petitioner's nomination on technical grounds for missing an acknowledgment regarding a pending tribe certificate proposal was erroneous and quashed the impugned order. The court directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition allowed; the impugned order quashed and set aside; the Returning Officer directed to accept the petitioner's nomination.

Sangita Govind Baywad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

904 wp 18 21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 18 OF 2021

¶4

Sangita Govind Baywad,
Age 31 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Parwa, Post Shekhrajur,
Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani.

¶5

…Petitioner.

¶6

VERSUS.

¶7

1) The State of Maharashtra.

¶8

2) The Collector, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.

¶9

3) Returning Officer, Grampanchayat Parwa, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani.

¶10

4) The State Election Commission, Through State Election Commissioner, Madam Kama Road, Mumbai.

¶11

5) Deputy Director (R)/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. … Respondents.

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Gangakhedkar Shailendra S.
A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar.
Advocate for the Respondents No. 3 to 5 : Mr. A.B. Kadethankar.

¶13

CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE:04.01.2021.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶15

Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶16

2.Nomination of the petitioner for the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe
category has been rejected by the Election Officer by the impugned order on the
ground that the acknowledgment tendered by the petitioner to demonstrate that
her proposal was pending before the concerned committee for scrutiny of the tribe
certificate was not proper in as much as it was addressed to some different

¶17

1/2

¶18

904 wp 18 21.odt

¶19

committee.

¶20

3. On instructions the learned A.G.P. makes a statement that the proposal of the petitioner for scrutinizing the tribe certificate is pending before respondent No. 5.

¶21

4. It is the case of the petitioner that in fact her proposal has been pending with the respondent No. 5 since the year 2015. Only error committed by her was not to file the concerned acknowledgment. Instead she chose to file another application for tribe verification and produced a fresh acknowledgment.

¶22

5.Though technically the petitioner has committed an error in not producing
acknowledgment regarding her proposal pending with the concerned Tribe
Scrutiny Committee since the year 2015 and instead chose to make a fresh
proposal, in my considered view when apparently the proposal of the petitioner is
pending with the concerned committee and even this Court had earlier passed an
order in her Writ Petition No. 1764/2016 directing the concerned committee to
decide it finally within stipulated time, it would be too technical to reject her
nomination for this reason.

¶23

6. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Returning Officer shall accept the nomination of the petitioner.

¶24

7. The learned advocate Mr. Kadethankar for the Election Commission as well as the learned advocate for the petitioner are instructed to communicate this order to the Returning Officer. The petitioner shall file affidavit before the Returning Officer to this effect.

¶25

8. The Returning Officer shall proceed to act on the basis of the affidavit to be tendered by the petitioner.

¶26

9. The rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms.

¶27

 (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶28

mkd/-

¶29

2/2

Sangita Govind Baywad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Govind Baywad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baliram Shripatrao Khedekar Vs Pralhad Shripatrao Khedekar and Anr.

Baliram Shripatrao Khedekar Vs Gopal Pralhad Khedekar and Others

Rajendra Kashinath Magar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pooja Dattatraya Mamadge Vs Maharashtra State Election Commission and Another

Nita Shankar Karpe Vs State Election Commission Thr Its Secretary and Others

Suresh Karbhani Gote Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others