SHIVSHANKAR RAMKRISHNA KINI Vs. ANNA BALA GAWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was one of the candidates at the election which was to be held for electing members of the Gram Panchayat of Nirmal in Bassein Taluka from Ward No. 3 -C. Under Rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959, the Mamlatdar had fixed the time between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. on January 4, 1965, for filing nomination, papers. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also filed their nomination papers, but these were not presented by them personally but through their agent. The agent did not have with him the authority in writing authorising him to present the nomination papers at the time when these were presented. This authority was produced by him on the same day at 5.45 p.m. after the time for presenting nomination papers had expired. At the time of scrutiny of nominations, which was held on the following day, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the authority authorising their agent to present the nomination papers had not been produced within the time prescribed for filing the nominations. Against the order made by him respondents Nos. 1 and 2 appealed to the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar took the view that it was not necessary to produce the authority along with the nomination papers and that since the authority had been produced subsequently the agent must be held to have been authorised in writing to present the nomination paper as required by Rule 8. The Mamlatdar, therefore, directed that the nominations of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 should be accepted. That order is being challenged in the present application.

(2.) MR . Limaye, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has contended that the view taken by the Mamlatdar is erroneous. He has argued that the authority in writing which is required by Rule 8 must be produced at the time when the nomination paper is presented. Mr. Rane, who appears on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, has, on the other hand, contended that Rule 8 does not require that the authority to present the nomination paper must be produced at the time when the nomination paper is presented and that consequently the view taken by the Mamlatdar is. correct. In order to decide which one of these views is correct it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the rules.

(3.) IN the present case, the authority authorising the agent of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to present the nomination papers was produced on the same day at 5.45 p.m. It is, however, not clear from the papers whether this authority was given before or after the nomination papers were presented. The Mamlatdar has not recorded a finding on this question. Since, however, the Mamlatdar has already accepted the nominations of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and since we do not think that it would be desirable to postpone the election for a further period, we have decided not to remand the matter to the Mamlatdar for an inquiry on the above point. If it is the ease of the petitioner that the agent, who had presented the nomination papers of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, did not possess the requisite authority at the time when these nomination papers were presented, it will be open to him to file an election petition, if so advised, after the election has been held.