POONAM W/O RAJESH PAWAR Vs. RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE ELECTION OF 2017 OF ZILLA PARISHAD, NAIGAON AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as both the petitions are having identical questions, which pertain to the compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Rules, 1962 (for short Z.P. & P.S. Rules, 1962).

(2.) As per the election programme, today is the date fixed for allotment of election symbols. The petitioner in these petitions is the same candidate (hereinafter referred to as common petitioner), interested to contest the elections to Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Her nomination paper was accepted by the Returning Officer, but the respondent Nos.3 and 7 in Writ Petition No.1974/2017 and respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.1975/2017 objected to the same by filing an election appeal before the District Judge. The respondent Nos.3 and 7 in Writ Petition No.1974/2017 are also the candidates who are interested to contest the elections. The respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.1975/2017 is, however, an eligible voter in these elections. The learned District Judge, after hearing the rival parties, found that, acceptance of nomination paper of the petitioner was incorrect and against the provisions of Sections 15, 16, 18, 22 and 23 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and also relevant rules. Therefore, by the order passed on 8/2/2017, the learned District Judge allowed both the Election Appeals No.1 and 2 of 2017 and rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is now before this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The nomination form was submitted by the common petitioner on the ticket of Bhartiya Janata Party for being elected as a Councillor to Nanded Zilla Parishad from Manjram Zilla Parishad Block. In this block, village Alu-wadgaon from Naigaon Legislative Assembly Constituency of Nanded district and of which the common petitioner is a resident, falls. Before the Returning Officer, respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.1974/2017 had taken an objection to acceptance of the nomination paper of the common petitioner and when it was turned down, the objection was carried in appeal before the learned District Judge, not only by respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.1974/2017 but also by respondent No.3 in other Writ Petition No.1975/2017. For this purpose, two separate appeals, being Election Appeals No.1 and 2 of 2017 were preferred. At the appellate stage, these objectors succeeded, giving rise to these petitions. At this level, respondent Nos.7 and 11 in Writ Petition No.1974/2017 have joined the chorus of objections.