ABDUL KHALEKH MOHAMMAD MUSA Vs. RAMKRISHNA MAROTI BANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to raise a question relating to the interpretation of Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies (Election to Committees) Rules, 1971. The fourth respondent is the specified society and the petitioner and the first respondent are contesting the election to the Board of Directors from the constituency described as 28-M constituency. We are informed that this constituency is for the election of a member to the Board from the weaker section of the community. The second respondent in the petition is the Returning Officer appointed to conduct the election for the said constituency. The State of Maharashtra has been joined as the third respondent.

(2.) The election programme for the fourth respondent Bank, hereinafter referred to as the respondent-bank, was announced and the election process started with the publication of the notice of the election on 3rd of June, 1985. The nomination papers were to be filed between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. of 18th of June, 1985. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed at 11 a.m. on 21st of June, 1985. The programme of election after this need not detain us, because we are concerned with the interpretation of Rule 23 as mentioned above which deals with the scrutiny of nomination papers.

(3.) The petitioner and the first respondent both had filed nomination papers for the election from th above mentioned constituency. The petitioner has contended that on the day fixed for the scrutiny of nomination papers, he went to the office of the Returning Officer at 12 noon and presented an objection to the nomination paper of the first respondent. The fact that the petitioner presented such an objection has been controverted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Returning Officer, but we will not decide that dispute and will proceed on the basis of the allegation of the petitioner that he presented the objection at 12 noon is correct. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the Returning Officer did not entertain the objection at 12 noon, because the time fixed for submitting the objection was over and that he had already completed the scrutiny. This, in fact, is the allegation of the petitioner himself in paragraph 4 of his petition. We will proceed on the basis that this is true. The petitioner has urged before us that the Returning Officer failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in law by refusing to entertain and decide the objection, which was filed by the petitioner at 12 noon on the ground that the time for scrutiny of nomination papers was over. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that though time is specified at 11 a.m. for the scrutiny of nomination papers, a reasonable interpretation of Rule 23 should result in holding that the period of scrutiny of nomination papers starts at 11 a.m. and it will continue during the normal hours of office. If it is so interpreted, then the objection filed by the petitioner at 12 noon could not be said to be out of time and should have been entertained and decided upon by the Returning Officer.