1 wp1203.2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION 1203 OF 2022

1.

Ashok Deorao Deshmukh (Tayade),

aged about 58 yrs, Occ. Agriculturist

2.

Sandip s/o. Kundlik Deshmukh,

aged about 31 yrs, Occ. Agriculturist,

both r/o. Kata, Washim,

Tahsil and District Washim. ...PETITIONERS

...V E R S U S...

1.

Assistant Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Washim,

District Washim

2.

Returning Officer appointed for the

Election of Seva Sahkari Ltd., Kata

Tah. And District Washim. ...RESPONDENTS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. R.D. Karode, counsel for petitioners.

Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondents/State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORA

M: ROHIT

B. DEO, J.

DATE : 04.03.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

consent, the petition is finally heard.

3.

Petitioners were desirous of contesting the

2 wp1203.2022

elections to the Managing Committee of Seva Sahakari Sanstha

Maryadit, Kata, Tahsil and District Washim (“Society”), which

Society is not impleaded as party respondent.

4.

According to the petitioners, their nomination

forms came to be illegally rejected by the Returning Officer –

respondent 2, vide order dated 14.2.2022, and the appeal

preferred under section 152-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative

Societies Act, 1960 (“Act”), is rejected by respondent 1, vide

order dated 25.2.2022.

5.

Aggrieved, the petitioners are invoking writ and

supervisory jurisdiction.

6.

Perusal of the Election Programme (Annexure A)

reveals that the scrutiny of the nomination forms was scheduled

on 11.2.2022 and the list of valid nomination forms was

scheduled on 14.2.2022. The withdrawal of nomination was

from 14.2.2022 to 28.2.2022 and the allotment of symbol and

the final list of valid nominations was on 2.3.2022. The

election is scheduled on 13.3.2022.

7.

In view of the vehement submission of the learned

3 wp1203.2022

counsel Mr. R.D. Karode that the order impugned rejecting the

nomination form is passed on 14.2.2022, I directed the

respondents to produce the record, which reveals that the

nomination form is rejected on the date of the scrutiny i.e.

11.2.2022 and the reasons are provided on 14.2.2022. The

record reveals that the affidavit which is required to be sworn,

does not bear the signature of the petitioners, and the defect is

therefore, substantial in the sense that such affidavit is no

affidavit in the eyes of law.

8.

It would be useful to make a reference of the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Prasad

Sharma vs. Charandas Mahant and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 390,

which the petitioners have pressed in service. The decision is

rendered in the context of the provisions of the Representation

of the Public Act, 1951. Noticing the provisions of the said Act,

particularly, section 36 thereof and the provisions of the

Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

observes thus:

“16. The directions issued by this Court, and

those issued by the Election Commission make

the filing of an affidavit an essential part of the

nomination papers, so that absence of an

affidavit may itself render a nomination paper

4 wp1203.2022

non-est in the eye of law. But where an

affidavit has been filed by the candidate and

what is pointed out is only a defect in the

format of the affidavit or the like, the q