RAVI AMRUTRAO BAGDE Vs. COMMISSIONER AMRAVATI DIVISION AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per election programme last date of submitting nomination was 9-8-2005, date of scrutiny was 11-8-2005 and date of publication of List of valid nominations was 12-8-2005. Respondent No. 4 submitted three nomination papers in said election from reserved constituency for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes etc. It is his contention that during scrutiny objection was raised that he was defaulter under section 73-FF of Maharashtra co-operative Societies Act and returning officer gave him time of one-day to point out that he is not defaulter and accordingly on 12-8-2005 he produced no due certificate and still his nomination paper came to be rejected. The said error is corrected on 25-8-2005 by Divisional commissioner in appeal under section 152-A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner has approached against this appellate order contending that no such time till 12-8- 2005 was given to said respondent by returning officer and in any case, 09-8-2005 was the last date for filing of nominations and therefore, said respondent has to demonstrate that he was not disqualified on 09-8-2005. Petitioner points out that payment of arrears i. e. amount in default has been made on 12-8-2005 and said payment cannot wipe out the disqualification already incurred. This court has passed interim orders and stayed election only from this constituency as it was found that there was some deliberate mischief to accommodate respondent No. 4 in the matter. It is in this background that the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself by consent of parties. Hence, rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) I have heard Advocate Naik for petitioner, Advocate Kaptan for respondent no. 4 and learned AGP Adv. Thakre for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(3.) After pointing out the facts in brief as stated above, advocate Naik has raised two points for attaching the impugned appellate order :-" (1). Last date of nomination i. e. 9-8-2005 is the relevant date for finding out whether respondent No. 4 was qualified or not. Subsequent payment by him either on 11-8-2005 or 12-8-2005 is not relevant and does not save the situation for him. The appellate order passed by Divisional Commissioner is therefore without jurisdiction. (2). Returning officer (respondent No. 2) did not grant any time to respondent No. 4 on 11-8-2005 and all his nomination papers were rejected on 11-8-2005. No nomination paper has been rejected on 12-8-2005. "