Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2 (BOM)

Siminta Shripati Mahamuni v. State of Maharashtra

2021-01-04

MANGESH S.PATIL

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Leave granted to withdraw the Writ Petition to the extent of petitioner Nos. 10 and 11. 3. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. The petitioners who had filed nomination from different wards of village Balsur, Taluka Omarga, District Osmanabad, are before this Court being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination forms primarily on the ground that the declaration in Annexure II did not bear their signatures either below the declaration or under the verification statement which was also not duly sworn before the Notary. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Thombre would submit that going by the provisions of Rule 11 (2-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Election Rules, the defect being minor, the returning officer should have allowed the petitioners to cure it. He would submit that the petitioners were present before the Returning Officer and even tried to tender the documents to cure the defect. But he deliberately received those late. The decision is politically motivated. The whole purpose of the election would be frustrated. The petitioners’ nominations are rejected in this fashion enblock. He would submit that a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Chaturabai Manohar Wadje and another Versus Returning Officer Masalga, Tq. Kandhar and another, by the order dated 02.01.2021, has allowed a similar defect to be cured. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Thombre also on instructions submits that in fact the Returning Officer was not impartial. He simply left the place even though the petitioners requested him to allow to cure the defect. Failure to do so has resulted in gross injustice and the petition be allowed. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Thombre further submits that going by the procedure, the candidates were supposed to file the nomination forms online and it is thereafter they were supposed to file a hard copy of the nomination forms and the annexures. The petitioners had already submitted their nomination forms online. All affidavits, undertakings and declarations were filed with the nomination except the duly signed Annexure II and the candidature ought not to have been refused simply for want of signature. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Kadethankar for the State Election Commission and the learned Advocate Mr. The petitioners had already submitted their nomination forms online. All affidavits, undertakings and declarations were filed with the nomination except the duly signed Annexure II and the candidature ought not to have been refused simply for want of signature. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Kadethankar for the State Election Commission and the learned Advocate Mr. Mukul Kulkarni for the intervenor would submit that the defect was not curable and it was substantial. Annexure II is in the form of a declaration which is supposed to be annexed with the verification made on oath. It is not a technical compliance or a mere formality to be complied with. Learned Advcoate Mr. Kadethankar submits that the genesis of the importance attached to such declaration can be found in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Association for Democratic Reforms and another, (2002) 5 SCC 294 , which has been followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ansari Halima Bano Mohammad Shaban Veersus The State Election Commission and Another, in Writ Petition No. 12916/2018 dated 26.11.2018 (Principal Seat). He would point out that referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Association for Democratic Reforms and another (supra), this Court has specifically held that such defect of want of signature cannot be trivialized as mere formality and is a substantial defect. 9. Suffice for the purpose to observe at the inception that as far as the factual aspects are concerned this Court would be loath in entering into that arena. 10. As regards the ground for rejection of the nomination forms are concerned, except in case of petitioner No. 12 wherein one more additional ground for non submission of an affidavit in respect of not having worked as a contractor for the Gram Panchayat, the nominations in respect of all the petitioners (except petitioner Nos. 10 and 11) have been rejected for want of signature and on the Annexure II and the verification below it. The importance of such a declaration is not an issue which is res integra. One can simply refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Association for Democratic Reforms and another (supra), which specifically lays down the importance of putting such signature on the nomination forms and the declaration. The importance of such a declaration is not an issue which is res integra. One can simply refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Association for Democratic Reforms and another (supra), which specifically lays down the importance of putting such signature on the nomination forms and the declaration. Following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court in the case of Ansari Halima Bano Mohammad Shaban (supra), has also concluded that absence of such signature is a substantial defect which cannot be cured under the garb of it being a merely formality and a curable defect. It is in the nature of declaration on oath. Considering the importance of such a declaration in Annexure II, no error can be found in the impugned order rejecting the nominations for this reason alone. 11. The Writ Petition is dismissed to the extent of petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 and 12 to 16. 12. Civil Application Stamp No. 120 of 2021 for intervention is allowed.