1709wp3493 of 2021.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.3493/2021

Shri Shrikant Bhimraoji Gawande

...Versus...

District Cooperative Election Officer and Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op.

Societies, Amravati and others

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

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders

appearances, Court'

s orders or directions

and Registrar'

s orders

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

Shri M.V. Samarth, Senior Advocate with Shri V.P. Ingle, Advocate for petitioner

Ms Tajwar Khan, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 17/09/2021

1.

Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Senior

Counsel with Shri V.P. Ingle, learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Ms Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

2.

The petition challenges the order dated

07/09/2021, passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the

objection sought to be raised by the petitioner, to the

acceptance of the nomination of the respondent no.3, has

been rejected, on the ground that such an objection was

raised after the scrutiny was over and the nomination of the

1709wp3493 of 2021.odt

2

respondent no.3 was accepted.

3.

Shri Samarth, learned Senior Counsel, by

inviting my attention to the provisions of Rule 25 Sub Rule 2

of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to

Committee) Rules, 2014 (for short, "the MCS (EC) Rules,

2014”, hereinafter) submits, that the petitioner has right to

raise an objection to the nomination submitted by any

candidate which has to be considered and decided by the

Returning Officer. He further submits that even otherwise, it

is the duty of the Returning Officer, to ensure that a

disqualified candidate does not enter into the fray and Sub

Rule 2 of Rule 25 of the MCS (EC) Rules, 2014, in fact, casts

an obligation upon the Returning Officer, to make such

summary enquiry, even on his own motion, as he thinks

necessary, in respect of any objection raised and upon finding

substance therein to reject the nomination, on the grounds,

as enumerated in Rule 25 (2) (a) to (d) of the MCS (EC)

Rules, 2014. Shri Samarth, learned Senior Counsel further

submits that the objection in respect of the candidature of the

respondent no.3 was sought to be taken by the petitioner,

when the nomination form of the respondent no.3 was being

scrutinized, however, since entry into the scrutiny hall was

debarred for any other candidate, as the nomination forms

were being scrutinized one by one and none, except the

candidate, his proposer and seconder were being permitted

1709wp3493 of 2021.odt

3

to enter, in view of which, at the time when the scrutiny of

the nomination of the respondent no.3 was done, the

objection could not be taken. However, when the nomination

form of the petitioner was being scrutinized, it is alleged, at

that point of time, the objection was raised that the

respondent no.3 was not qualified, which according to him,

was not taken into consideration at all on the count that the

period for the same had already lapsed.

4.

Shri Samarth, learned Senior Counsel further

submits, by relying upon Shailesh Narayan Shinde Vs.

Chetan Vitthal Tupe and others, 2011 (6) Mh.L.J 470 that

the purpose of the scrutiny, is to maintain the purity in the

election process and at least precaution is to be taken as

wrong candidature should not be allowed to go on and if the

Returning Officer without proper verification accepts the

nomination form and if any election dispute is raised then

the election of elected candidate may be set aside, if it was

found that the nomination form was wrongly accepted. It has

also been held therein that the Returning Officer is required

to hold summary enquiry at the