JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:-Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri De, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Dangre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1, and Mrs. Khade learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2.Shri De, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the petition is directed against the order dated 28-5-2003 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination form, which the petitioner had filed for election of Gram Panchayat, Dhamangaon from Ward No. 2 for the seat, which was reserved for "Other Backward Class". It is contended that the nomination form was filed on 27-5-2003 and scrutiny of nomination forms took place on 28-5-2003. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination form of the petitioner on 28-5-2003 on the ground that the tax receipt for the year 2002-03 in respect of the house owned by the father-in-law of the petitioner, with whom the petitioner was jointly residing, was not filed and, therefore, the petitioner had incurred disqualification under section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. It is submitted that the petitioner was the only candidate, who had filed nomination form from Ward No. 2 and, therefore, she was the sole candidate from the said ward in the election.

3.Learned Counsel Shri De states that in the instant case, a complaint was lodged by one Nilkanth Punjabrao Nandurkar, who is not even a voter of the said ward, against the petitioner, alleging that the father-in-law of the petitioner has not paid taxes for the year 2002-03 and nomination form of the petitioner was rejected on the basis of the said complaint without following the due procedure applicable in this regard by the Returning Officer. It is submitted that in fact taxes for the above referred year were paid by the father-in-law of the petitioner on 10-9-2002, i.e. prior to the date prescribed for nomination of candidates and, therefore, in view of Explanation 2(i) to section 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the petitioner has not incurred any disqualification.

4.It is contended by learned Counsel Shri De that Rule 11 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules deals with the scrutiny of nominations and requires that the Returning Officer shall make necessary enquiry before rejecting the nomination paper. In the instant case, though the petitioner's father-in-law had paid the taxes much prior to the last date of nomination, the Returning Officer, without conducting any enquiry in this regard, rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of House Taxes by her father-in-law and, therefore, the impugned order of rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner is invalid in law. It is further contended that in the instant case, the Standing Committee has not taken any steps as contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and, therefore, if the petitioner succeeds in the present petition, she can be declared elected from Ward No. 2.

5.Learned Counsel Shri De further states that the present petition is maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in (Mohinder Singh Gill another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi others)1, 1978(1) S.C.C. 405 and (Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar others)2, 2000(8) S.C.C. 216. It is submitted that so far as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade v. Returning Officer, Akot another)3, 2004(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)1 is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court, without considering the merits of the case and by following the decision in (N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency)4, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 64, held that improper rejection or acceptance of nomination paper can be said to be one of the grounds for setting aside election and as such, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the rejection of nomination form is not maintain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document