SUKMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 30th April 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shahada , in Election Petition No.4/98. By the impugned order, the Additional District Judge, Shahada , allowed the Election Petition filed by the respondent no.2 herein, namely, Sunita w/o. Raju Jadhav , and set aside the decision of the Returning Officer dated 15 12 1998 whereby he declared the present petitioner, namely, Sukma w/o. Badrinath Sonawane , as a returned candidate from Block No.94 Javade Tarfe Haveli , Panchayat Samiti , Shahada ( District : Nandurbar ).

(2.) FEW facts which are required to be stated are as follows : The election of Panchayat Samiti , Shahada ( District : Nandurbar ), for the year 1998 2003 was declared. The Returning Officer allotted the seats for the reserved category and Block No.94 was reserved for Scheduled Caste woman category. On 13 12 1998, the election was held. The date for counting the votes was 15th December, 1998. After counting, the petitioner herein secured more votes than the other contesting candidates. Therefore, respondent no.3 / Returning Officer declared the petitioner as elected member of Panchayat Samiti , Shahada , from Block No.94 in Javade Tarfe Haveli constituency. The respondent no.2 who was defeated candidate, being aggrieved by the decision of the Returning Officer, declaring the petitioner as elected, filed Election Petition No.4/1998 under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Shahada , who after recording evidence and after hearing both the sides, passed the impugned order allowing the said petition with costs and set aside the election of the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) THE second contention of the petitioner was that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers, no objection was taken by the respondent no.1 herein about the name of the petitioner not being included in the voters' list. The learned Additional District Judge, however, by referring to the judgment of this Court reported in 1981 Mh.L.J.673 , in the matter of Dinkar Ananda Deore Vs. Shantaram Punjaji and others (1981 Mh.L.J.673) , rejected this contention also by relying upon the following passage from the said decision. "Rules cannot cut down statutory jurisdiction created by parent enactment Rule providing appeal at stage of scrutiny Such provision does not affect the tenability of election petition on the ground that the candidate elected was disqualified." Thus, by well written judgment, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the petition of the defeated candidate/respondent no.2 herein, namely, that of Sunita w/o. Raju Jadhav , with costs and set aside the decision of the Returning Officer who declared the petitioner as elected candidate.