Allowed

Pranita Anil Shinde v. the Commissioner and Others

Bombay HC2 Jan 2021WP/6/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Returning Officer's rejection of nomination for lack of affidavit regarding marital name. Court held RO failed to apply mind as affidavit was submitted before rejection. Petition allowed, refusal set aside, and petitioner directed to produce affidavit before finalization.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of rejection set aside; petitioner directed to place specified affidavit before Returning Officer by 04-01-2021 to contest election.

Pranita Anil Shinde Vs the Commissioner and Others — Election Law | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(1)

¶2

wp6.21

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

906 WRIT PETITION NO. 6 OF 2021

¶5

PRANITA ANIL SHINDE VS THE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr. A. S.Anerao, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A. B. Kadethankar, Standing counsel for respondent No. 1 Mr. R. D.Sanap, AGP for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5

¶7

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. DATE : 02-01-2021

¶8

P. C.

¶9

By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of rejection of her nomination form passed by the Returning Officer on the ground that she has not filed an affidavit to indicate her marital name which is already included in the voters list.

¶10

I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the petition paper book. With their assistance, I have perused the affidavit of the petitioner which is dated 24-12-2020, and I have also perused her application submitted to the Returning Officer on 31-12-2020, at 05.58 pm which was much prior to the rejection of her nomination form at 07.19 pm on 31-12-2020.

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

(2) wp6.21

¶13

It is obvious that the Returning Officer has not applied his mind and has failed to discharge the duty as required under Rule-11 (2A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 which permits the candidate to correct a minor defect. The affidavit stating the change of name owing to her marriage is dated 24-122020, and the petitioner has presented her application to the Returning Officer at 05.58 pm on 31-12-2020 prior to the rejection of her nomination form.

¶14

In view of above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of rejection dated 31-12-2020 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to place the affidavit at page 32 and 33 of the petition paper book before the Returning Officer on or before 12.00 noon on 04-01-2021. On compliance of this direction, she shall be permitted to contest the election as the finalization of the candidates for election is scheduled at 03.00 pm on 04-01-2021.

¶15

Since the order has been dictated in the open court, the parties need not wait for the order to be uploaded on the official website of Bombay High court.

¶16

[ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]

¶17

VishalK/wp6.21

¶18

2 of 2

Pranita Anil Shinde v. the Commissioner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranita Anil Shinde v. the Commissioner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajanan Rambhau Garad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Adinath S/O. Walmik Gutte Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin S/O. Nagraj Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Manohar Shinde Vs the State Election Comission and Others

Lilabai Antikrao Bakal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Rural Development Dept. and Others

Kishor Housiram Brahmane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others