Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chhaya w/o Gopal Gavhane, filed a nomination for election to the Grampanchayat, Mhalsapur, Taluka Sengaon, District Hingoli from Ward No.1. The Returning Officer rejected her nomination form on the ground that she had tendered a passbook of a bank account which was old. The petitioner challenged this rejection by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. The main legal issue was whether the rejection of nomination on the ground of an old bank passbook was valid. The petitioner's counsel argued that under Rule 83 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Section 77 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, and the Circular dated 15.10.2013 issued by the Election Commission of India, the law does not require a new or fresh account to be opened. The defect was otherwise curable under Rule 11 of the Grampanchayat Election Rules, and the Returning Officer ought to have notified the objection and allowed the petitioner to cure it. The Court, after hearing the parties, found that the rejection was illegal. The Court noted that the petitioner had a bank account in her name and the passbook, though old, was sufficient. The Court relied on a previous decision in Avinash Lobhaji Patole v. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.11923 of 2017, decided on 28.09.2017) where similar facts were involved. The Court held that the defect was curable and the Returning Officer should have given an opportunity to cure it. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of rejection, and directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination of the petitioner and proceed with the election accordingly.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination - Rejection of Nomination - Curable Defect - The Returning Officer rejected the petitioner's nomination for Grampanchayat election on the ground that she tendered an old bank passbook. The Court held that the law does not require a new or fresh account to be opened and the defect was curable under Rule 11 of the Grampanchayat Election Rules. The Returning Officer ought to have notified the objection and allowed the petitioner to cure it. (Paras 3-5) B) Election Law - Nomination - Bank Account - Old Passbook - The Court, relying on the Circular dated 15.10.2013 issued by the Election Commission of India, held that a candidate is not required to open a new bank account for election purposes; an existing account with an old passbook is sufficient. (Para 4) C) Election Law - Nomination - Curable Defect - Rule 11 of the Grampanchayat Election Rules - The Court observed that the defect of tendering an old passbook is curable under Rule 11, and the Returning Officer should have given an opportunity to cure the defect instead of rejecting the nomination. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of nomination form by the Returning Officer on the ground that the petitioner tendered an old bank passbook is valid in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The Returning Officer is directed to accept the nomination of the petitioner and proceed with the election in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Rejection of nomination on ground of old bank passbook is illegal
- defect is curable under Rule 11 of Grampanchayat Election Rules
- law does not require a new or fresh bank account to be opened
- Circular dated 15.10.2013 of Election Commission of India supports that old passbook is sufficient
