SHAHEDA TABASSUM TAYAR MUGAL Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Khanzode, learned Advocate for the petitioner.

(2.) Ms. Kalyani R. Deshpande, learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate waives service of notice for respondent no. 3.

(3.) The petition poses serious challenge to the communication dated 02.11.2020, which has been described in the petition as an impugned order. By this communication, nomination of the petitioner for the post of President, Nagar Panchayat, Kurkheda has been rejected and nomination of respondent no. 3 for the same post has been accepted. In this communication, acceptance of nomination for the post of President was on the basis that the petitioner did not raise any objection at the time when an opportunity to do the same was granted by the Returning Officer. In other words, nomination of respondent no. 3 took place as the petitioner waived her right to raise the objection. The nomination of respondent no. 3 did take place because there was no objection raised to such nomination by the petitioner. But, nomination of the petitioner was rejected and that was an account of findings recorded by this Court in another matter. This Court, while deciding the Writ Petition No.2950/2018 on 27.06.2018 had declared the petitioner as disqualified for contesting the election for the post of President. This decision of the High Court has been challenged by the petitioner before the Apex Court and, the Supreme Court, upon hearing the learned Counsel, made an order of issuance of notice on the Special Leave Petition, as well as on the prayer for interim relief, returnable within 3 weeks on 13.07.2018. Copy of this order has been filed in the Writ Petition at page no. 39. After this order passed on 13.07.2018, no interim relief has been granted by the Apex Court till date, and learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate are ad idem on this issue.