Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1026 (BOM)

Jyoti W/o Sanjay Walke v. State of Maharashtra

2008-07-18

NARESH H.PATIL

body2008
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) Leave to delete respondent No.6. 3) Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4) The elections to the Village Panchayat Loha, Taluka Hadgaon were declared. The petitioners filed their nomination papers for the seats reserved for the backward class of citizens along with the caste certificates issued by the competent authorities showing that they belong to Nomadic Tribes. The Village Panchayat consists of 9 members. Along with the petitioners seven other persons filed their nomination papers. As there was no other contestants, it is stated that the 7 persons who had filed their nomination papers were to be declared elected unopposed. Both the petitioners filed their nomination papers for two seats reserved for the backward class of citizens. Therefore, along with the other 7 persons both the petitioners would be declared elected unopposed. 5) The Returning Officer by an order dated 7-7-2008 rejected the nomination papers of the petitioners on the ground that candidates belonging to "Other Backward Class" are not included in the definition of backward class of citizens. 6) According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners the Returning Officer committed a serious error in considering the petitioners’ nomination papers from Other Backward Class category whereas the petitioners had submitted their nomination papers along with caste certificates claiming to be belonging to Nomadic Tribes, a backward class of citizens. The learned counsel submits that, in case the nomination papers of the petitioners are not accepted then the petitioners would loose their statutory right to contest the election. 7) The learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission, Shri. S.T. Shelke had called for the original record and based on the instructions the learned counsel submits that the petitioners had submitted nomination papers as persons belonging to Nomadic Tribes. Two seats in the village panchayat were reserved for persons belonging to backward class of citizens and considering the definition of Backward Class of citizens as provided in Section 3(a-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the learned counsel fairly stated that the nomination papers of the petitioners ought to have been accepted by the Returning Officer. Two seats in the village panchayat were reserved for persons belonging to backward class of citizens and considering the definition of Backward Class of citizens as provided in Section 3(a-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the learned counsel fairly stated that the nomination papers of the petitioners ought to have been accepted by the Returning Officer. 8) The provisions of Section 10(2)(a) of the Act, 1958 read thus: "10(2)(a) In the seats to be filled in by election in a Panchayat there shall be seats reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of Citizens and Women, as may be determined by the State Election Commission in the prescribed manner." Section 3 (a-3) defines "Backward Class of citizens" which reads : " means such classes or parts of or groups within such classes as are declared, from time to time, by the State Government to be Other Backward Classes and Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes." 8.A. The persons belonging to Other Backward Classes, Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes are included in the definition of "Backward Class of citizens". Both the petitioners being belonging to Nomadic Tribes were entitled to contest the elections under the reserved constituencies kept for backward class of citizens. The Returning Officer has failed to appreciate this and committed serious error in rejecting the nomination papers. According to the Returning Officer the OBC is not included in the backward classes of citizens, therefore, the nominations papers were rejected. In case the Returning Officer had considered the definition of the "Backward Class of citizens" occurring in Section 3(a-3) of the Act then the error would not have ben committed. 9) As per the election programme the polling is to take place on 20th July 2008 and the declaration of result is to take place on 22nd July 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioners state that for the two seats reserved for backward class of citizens there is no contest. 10) In the facts of the case I find that it would not be reasonable to drive the petitioners to some other remedies. In case the nomination papers filed by the petitioners are accepted then the petitioners would be declared elected unopposed along with other candidates. 10) In the facts of the case I find that it would not be reasonable to drive the petitioners to some other remedies. In case the nomination papers filed by the petitioners are accepted then the petitioners would be declared elected unopposed along with other candidates. Considering the facts of the case I find that in stead of driving the parties to alternate forum and to cut short litigation to save the time and energy this writ petition could be disposed of finally at this stage itself. I have perused the original record. 11) In this view of the matter, the writ petition is required to be allowed. 12) The order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioners is quashed and set aside. It is declared that the nomination papers filed by the petitioners are valid. Their names shall be included in the list of validly nominated candidates for the elections to the village panchayat by the concerned authority. Further process shall commence according to the election programme. 13) Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Authenticated copy be given to counsel for the parties.