Kishor Housiram Brahmane v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

WP37_2021 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 937 WRIT PETITION NO.37 OF 2021 KISHOR HOUSIRAM BRAHMANE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P.for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. A.B. Kadethankar, Standing Counsel for resp. Nos.2 & 5. ...

CORAM :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

(Vacation Court) DATE :

02nd January 2021 PER COURT:

1.

The only reason for rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner is that though he has submitted his caste validity certifcate, a copy of the caste certifcate is not tendered.

2.

I fnd that the Returning Offcer has resorted to a pedantic approach. When the caste validity certifcate is tendered, it clearly indicates a particular caste from a particular category, which claim of the petitioner is validated. I do not see any reason for the Returning Offcer to reject the nomination form in the light of Rule 11 (2-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules, 1959.

WP37_2021 (2) 3.

This petition, is therefore, allowed. The impugned order stands quashed and set aside. Since the certifcate of caste validity indicates the caste of the petitioner as being "Mahar - 37", his nomination form stands validated. (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) vd_dhirde