MARUTIDADAKHE Vs. BABURAO JYOTI KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners and respondents Nos 1 to 3 contested the Village Panchayat Elections of Village Mangle in Shirala Taluka of Sangli District. They contested the elections for one of the reserved seats in Ward No. 5 of the said village. The last date for filing the nomination papers was 14th of March, 1984, by which date the petitioners and the other contesting candidates filed their nomination papers. On the date of scrutiny, namely on 16th of March, 1984, it was found that the nomination paper of the first respondent did not bear his signature nor his thumb impression as required by Rule 8 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules,1959 and Form'A' thereunder. Therefore, his nomination paper was rejected and in the elections that were held on 31st March, 1984, the petitioners were declared elected.

(2.) The first respondent filed an election petition, being Election Petition No. 6 of 1984, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Islampur. By his judgment and order dated 7th of October, 1985, the learned Civil Judge allowed the petition by holding that the Returning Officer, who is respondent No. 6 in this petition, was in error in not obtaining the thumb impression of the first respondent on the nomination paper. The learned Civil Judge thought that it was the duty of the Returning Officer to see that the nomination paper was complete in all respects, especially in so far as the signature or the thumb impression of the candidate is concerned. It is this order of the learned Civil Judge that is the subject-metter of challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Pradhan, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, had no difficulty in showing that the reasoning of the learned Civil Judge is wholly inconsistent with the express language of Rule 8 and Form 'A' thereunder. Mr. Pradhan argued, and I have no hesitation in upholding this argument, that the learned Civil Judge has read into the said rule a duty on the part of the Returning Officer which is totally unwarranted by the language of that rule. Before examining the correctness of the view taken by the learned Civil Judge, it would be advantageous to notice what exactly weighed with the learned Civil Judge, while setting aside the election of the petitioners. It was argued before the learned Civil Judge on behalf of the first respondent that the first respondents had brought to the notice of the Returning Officer that be had not put his thumb impression on the nomination paper and the Returning Officer should obtain the same from him. The learned Civil Judge held that this was a clear improvement made by the first respondent and such a case had not been made out in the election petition filed by him.