SURESH BHAGWANRAO MOHITE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The three petitioners have challenged, in this petition, the orders passed by the Returning Officer-second respondent on 7-1-1986 reject- ing their nomination forms for the ensuring elections of the Committee of the Vivid ha Karkari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd , Jamkhed - the respondent No. 3.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the respondents No. 2 Returning Officer notified the election programme of the Committee of respondent No. 3 on 21-12-1985. According to the election programme, the date of acceptance of nomination forms was 6-1-1986. The date and the result of the scrutiny was fixed for 7-1-1986. The three petitioners, claiming to be qualified for contesting the elections to be held on 28-1-1986, rilled in their nomination froms and submitted them as per the schedule fixed. However, on the date of the scrutiny, an objection was raised by Tukaram Asaram Jadhav - respondent No. 4 that the petitioners have not written the year in the column for which they are contesting the elections of the Society. Despite the fact that the petitioners brought to the notice of the Returning Officer - respondent No. 2, that the defect was only of a technical nature and not material one yet the respondent No. 2 passed orders rejecting the nomination forms, which orders are being impugned in this petition.

(3.) Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Awadesh Singh v. Sumitra Devi, AIR 1972 SC 580, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the defects found in the nomination papers were not of a substantial character or importance, hence the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. A perusal of the Xerox copy of the nomination paper would disclose that the petitioners have failed to writ the year of the election in the space left for the purpose and which is explained by the petitioners as a mistake on their part. The blank nomination papers were required to be purchased by the petitioners during the period also notified in the election programme. Naturally, the forms sold were for the elections to be held for the year 1985-86. This fact was known to all, including the respondent No. 2. Obviously, therefore, leaving the column blank in respect of the year for which the elections were to be held cannot be said to be of a substantial character so as to reject their nomination forms which were otherwise found to be in order.