Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who had filed nominations from different wards of village Balsur, Taluka Omarga, District Osmanabad, challenged the decision of the Returning Officer rejecting their 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. The petitioners argued that under Rule 11(2-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Election Rules, the defect was minor and curable, and the Returning Officer should have allowed them to cure it. They contended that they were present before the Returning Officer and tried to tender documents to cure the defect, but the Returning Officer deliberately received them late, acting in a politically motivated manner. The petitioners also relied on a Single Judge order in Chaturabai Manohar Wadje v. Returning Officer, which allowed a similar defect to be cured. The respondents, including the State Election Commission and an intervenor, argued that the defect was not minor and the rejection was justified. The court, after hearing submissions, held that the defect was minor and curable, and the Returning Officer ought to have allowed the petitioners to cure it. The court set aside the rejection of nomination forms and directed the Returning Officer to accept the nominations, allowing the petitioners to contest the election. The court also granted leave to withdraw the petition for petitioners No. 10 and 11.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination - Curable Defect - Rule 11(2-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Election Rules - The Returning Officer rejected nomination forms of several candidates on the ground that Annexure II did not bear signatures and verification was not sworn before Notary. The court held that such defect is minor and curable, and the Returning Officer ought to have allowed the candidates to cure it. The court set aside the rejection and directed acceptance of nominations. (Paras 4-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting nomination forms for want of signatures on Annexure II and verification, and whether such defect is curable under Rule 11(2-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Election Rules.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the rejection of nomination forms, and directed the Returning Officer to accept the nominations, allowing the petitioners to contest the election. Leave granted to withdraw for petitioners No. 10 and 11.
Law Points
- Minor defect in nomination form can be cured
- Returning Officer must allow opportunity to cure
- Rule 11(2-A) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Election Rules
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (01) 21
Writ Petition Stamp No. 84 of 2021 with Civil Application Stamp No. 120 of 2021
Mr. S.S. Thombre for Petitioners, Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4, Mr. A.B. Kadethankar for Respondent Nos. 2 & 5, Mr. Mukul Kulkarni for Caveator
Siminta Shripati Mahamuni and Others
The State of Maharashtra and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of nomination forms for village panchayat elections.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought setting aside of the Returning Officer's decision rejecting their nomination forms and direction to accept them.
Filing Reason
The Returning Officer rejected nomination forms on the ground that Annexure II did not bear signatures and verification was not sworn before Notary.
Previous Decisions
A Single Judge of this Court in Chaturabai Manohar Wadje v. Returning Officer allowed a similar defect to be cured.
Issues
Whether the defect in nomination forms (lack of signatures on Annexure II and verification) is minor and curable under Rule 11(2-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Election Rules.
Whether the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination forms without giving an opportunity to cure the defect.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the defect was minor and curable, and the Returning Officer should have allowed them to cure it. They were present and tried to tender documents, but the Returning Officer deliberately received them late.
Respondents argued that the defect was not minor and the rejection was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Rule 11(2-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Election Rules, a defect in the nomination form that is minor and curable must be allowed to be cured by the Returning Officer. The lack of signatures on Annexure II and verification is a minor defect, and the Returning Officer's rejection without giving an opportunity to cure is improper.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners who had filed nomination from different wards of village Balsur... 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.
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.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition Stamp No. 84 of 2021 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the rejection of their nomination forms. The court heard the matter on 04.01.2021 and allowed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayat Election Rules: Rule 11(2-A)
