SHAHAJI GOVINDRAO POL Vs. TISANGI SARVA SEVA SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is not on board for final hearing today. However, with the consent of the parties it is taken up for final hearing. Heard finally.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the rejection of his nomination paper for the post of member of the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.1 Society. The nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected by the Returning Officer of the Respondent No.1 Society on two grounds :-

(3.) So far as the first ground is concerned, it is common ground before me that there are two constituencies for election to the Managing Committee of the respondent No.1 Society, namely, constituency 'A' and constituency 'B'. Constituency 'B' is a group of members from non-borrower constituency. The borrower constituency is known as 'A' Constituency, which is sub-divided into 4 categories. 'A' constituency general elects 5 members. 'A' constituency reserved for backward class, elects 1 candidates. 'A' constituency economical backward class, elects 1 candidate and 'A' constituency - reserved for woman members, elects one candidate. But in the nomination paper the petitioner has stated that he was contesting from 'A' constituency. However, he did not specifically mention, whether he was contesting from 'A' general or any of the reserved categories and on that ground his nomination paper was rejected and the rejection was confirmed by the appellate authority. It is to be seen here that the failure of the candidate to mention a particular category in 'A' constituency cannot be termed as error of a substantial nature. The error could have been pointed out to the candidate by the Returning Officer while accepting his nomination paper or while scrutinizing the nomination papers. The errors is of a minor nature. Considering that this is a village co-operative society and the candidates who are contesting, are also agriculturist residing in village, in my opinion, non mention of a particular category in such a situation cannot be termed as a vital or substantial error. Therefore, on this ground the nomination paper of the petitioner could not have been rejected.