Bombay High Court
Tukaram Ramji Ingole vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 6 January, 2016
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 WP4048.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4048 OF 2015
PETITIONER : Tukaram Ramji Ingole,
Aged about 72 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Kanha, Tah. Mahagaon,
District - Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS
ig : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Yavatmal.
2] Election Officer,
Gram Panchayat, Kanha,
Tah. Mahagaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
3] Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kanha,
Tah. Mahagaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
4] Shri Mahadeo S/o Namdeo Wadge,
Aged about major, Occu. Secretary,
Gram Panchayat, Kanha, R/o C/o
Gram Panchayat Office, Kanha,
Tah. Mahagaon, Dist. Yavatmal.
5] Sau. Anusayabai Kisan Narwade,
Aged major, Occu. Nil,
R/o C/o Secretary, Gram Panchayat,
office, Kanha, Tah. Mahagaon,
Dist. Yavatmal.
----------------------------------------
Mr. V. N. Patre, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A. D. Sonak, A.G.P. for the respondent nos.1 and 2
Mr. R. J. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent nos.3 and 4
None for the respondent no.5, though served.
---------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:58:37 :::
2 WP4048.15.odt
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
DATE : 06th JANUARY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent no.2 - Election Officer, Gram Panchayat, Kanha, dated 13.07.2015, thereby rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner for contesting the Gram Panchayat elections.
3. A notification was issued by the respondent no.1 -
Collector, Yavatmal in respect of elections of Gram Panchayat, Kanha, Dist. Yavatmal. The petitioner being desirous of contesting the said elections, submitted his nomination form with an undertaking that the petitioner is of 72 years of age and he is not in arrears of any amount due and payable towards the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner had also submitted the necessary documents along with the nomination form such as certificate issued by the Competent Authority in respect of the children, the Caste Certificate and the certificate to the effect that the petitioner has constructed a toilet block and is using the same. However, the nomination form of the petitioner was rejected ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:58:37 ::: 3 WP4048.15.odt on the ground that the petitioner is an employee of the Gram Panchayat.
4. Mr. Patre, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.3 - Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kanha, had issued a certificate, dated 08.07.2015 to the effect that the petitioner is resident of Kanha and is not engaged on any contractual work undertaken by the Gram Panchayat.
ig The learned counsel then submits that to the surprise of the petitioner, one another certificate was issued by the same Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Kanha i.e. respondent no.3 to one Subhash Narwade stating that the petitioner is a salaried employee of the Gram Panchayat and receiving salary @ Rs.1,800/- per month. The learned counsel further submits that the said certificate is undated and without seal of the Gram Panchayat.
The learned counsel submits that on account of such a suspicious certificate, which is in total contrast to the certificate, dated 08.07.2015, issued by the same Secretary, rejection of the nomination form of the petitioner is clearly unsustainable. The learned counsel submits that these facts are also taken note of by this Court while passing order, dated 16.07.2015. On these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order impugned in the present petition.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:58:37 :::4 WP4048.15.odt
5. Mr. Sonak, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 made an attempt to support the impugned order with the help of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4. The learned counsel submits that the respondent no.4 - Secretary is discharging his duties since long. He is having charge of four villages namely, Gunj, Pimpalgaon, Kanha and Malegaon and his service record is clean and unblemished.
ig Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel further submits that one Subhash Narwade had approached the respondent no.4 and made a request for providing information as to how many employees are working in Gram Panchayat, Kanha and on the basis of the record, the certificate was issued by the respondent no.4 to the effect that the petitioner was a contractual employee of the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 supported the order impugned in this petition.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the for the respective parties and on a perusal of the documents placed on record, it clearly reveals that the respondent-Secretary has issued two certificates taking diagonally opposite stand about the petitioner. In the certificate, dated 08.07.2015, the respondent-Secretary states that the petitioner is resident of Kanha and is not engaged on any ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:58:37 ::: 5 WP4048.15.odt contractual work undertaken by the Gram panchayat, whereas, in the certificate which is undated, the respondent-Secretary states that the petitioner is a salaried employee of the Gram Panchayat and receiving salary of Rs.1,800/- per month. Though, it is stated in the affidavit-in- reply filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 that the certificate was issued in view of the record available with the Gram panchayat, the learned counsel was unable to place reliance on any such record. It is also interesting to note that in the reply, the respondent-Secretary takes a stand that the petitioner was contractual employee of the Gram Panchayat and was looking after the cattle courtyard. The certificate issued by the respondent-Secretary referring that the petitioner is a salaried employee of the Gram Panchayat and receiving salary @ Rs.1,800/- per month, is not in consonance with the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply. The petitioner has also placed on record a copy of School Leaving Certificate, issued by the Head Master of Zilla Parishad High School, Kanha, referring the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.03.1943.
7. In view of above, there is considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is in his advanced age of about 72 years, cannot be an employee of the government, semi-government organization, Zilla Parishad or Gram Panchayat. Thus, the certificate issued by the ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:58:37 ::: 6 WP4048.15.odt respondent-Secretary stating that the petitioner is a salaried employee raises some doubt or suspicion. It is also interesting to note that the said certificate bears no date, whereas the certificate issued on 08.07.2015 issued by the same respondent-Secretary stating that the petitioner is not engaged on any contractual work undertaken by the Gram Panchayat, bears the seal of the Gram Panchayat and the date. The said certificate, dated 08.07.2015 was submitted along with the nomination form for the perusal of the Returning Officer. It seems that the Returning Officer, without application of the mind, mechanically rejected the nomination form of the petitioner. On the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner had submitted the certificate of the Gram panchayat having seal and date and if there was a counter certificate issued by the same Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, which is not having the date and the seal, the Returning Officer ought to have satisfied himself, instead of rejecting the nomination form mechanically, thereby depriving the petitioner from exercising his right to contest the election. On the backdrop of these facts, the order passed by the Returning Officer, rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner, is clearly unsustainable. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. This Court by order dated 16.07.2015, has already directed the Returning Officer to provisionally accept the nomination paper of the petitioner and to include his name in the list of validly nominated candidates and to allot him symbol for ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:58:37 ::: 7 WP4048.15.odt the purposes of elections which were scheduled on 25 th July, 2015.
However, this Court has restrained the Returning Officer from declaring the result of the elections until further orders of this Court Since, the petition is being decided, the Returning Officer can be directed to declare the result of the elections.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
The order passed by the respondent no.2 - Election Officer, Gram Panchayat, Kanha, dated 13.07.2015 is quashed and set aside. The Returning Officer is free to declare the results of the elections Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE Diwale ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:58:37 :::