SURESH DINKAR CHOUGULE Vs. RANGARAO ABAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) There are two petitioners in the Writ Petition and the learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that he is willing to submit to the Rule being absolute in this Writ Petition. Since serious allegations of tampering have been made against the returning officer and the group to which the returning officer is obviously partial, we called for a perusal of the two forms supposedly given by the Petitioners. In the form of Petitioner No. 2 Baburao Kondiram Chawan, it is clear that the Marathi numeral 1 has been interpolated before 90. This interpolation could only have been done by or with obvious collusion of the returning officer. The returning officer, therefore, appears to us to ba totally unfit person to discharge any important duties and we direct the Assistant Government Pleader to bring our observations to the notice of the Co-operative Department. This is to ensure that his name is not approved by the said Department in any capacity tor a period of three years from today in connection with any Society and not only the present Society.

(3.) As regards the form for Petitioner No. i Suresh Dinkar Chougule, we are of opinion, prima facie, that the form handed to us cannot be the form tendered by me candidate since not only there are no signatures of the proposer and the seconder but the form does not even contains ihe signature of the candidate. If this were the true form the objection would have been that the form is unsigned by the candidate and not that it is aot signed by the proposer and the seconder. This makes the returning officer guilty of substitution of a form. Therefore, apart from the concession there is enough material to substantiate some fraud on the part of the returning officer qua this Petitioner and this conclusion must have bearing also on similar contentions as those raised in the allied matters as far as this Society and this returning officer are concerned. This present petition has been occasioned by the possible fraudulent and improper conduct of Respondent No. 1 so that the proper order for costs wiii be to direct iiim to pay the costs. Now ia view of these observations vve pass the following operative order.