Laxmi Rajanna Kanlod v. The State Election Commission Of Maharashtra Through Returning Officer And Others

1 W.P.7170.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7170 OF 2015 .

Laxmi Rajanna Kanlod, Age : 25 years, Occup- Nil, R/o : Mangnali Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded ...PETITIONER versus 1.

The State Election Commission of Maharashtra through the Returning Officer Gram Panchayat General Election Mangnali Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded.

2.

The District Collector, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.

3.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded.

4.

The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R) Aurangabad.

5.

Gangubai W/o Mohan Pujrod, Age: 53 years, Occu. Agri.

R/o Mangnali, Tq. Dharmabad.

Dist. Nanded.

...RESPONDENTS .....

Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents No. 2 and 3 Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 4 Mr. L.C. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 5. .....

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : 23rd JULY, 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for parties finally, with consent.

2 W.P.7170.15 2.

The petitioner purports to take exception to the order dated 13-07-2015 accepting nomination of respondent No. 5 to contest election of Gram Panchayat, Mangnali though requisite receipt about submission of tribe claim to scrutiny Committee had not been submitted along with nomination papers. Said objection before the returning officer had been overlooked and thus the petitioner is before this court.

3.

Learned counsel for respondents point out page No. 19-A, annexed to the petition and submits that as a matter of fact, proper evidence depicting receipt about submission of tribe claim for scrutiny by the concerned committee had been filed along with nomination paper. The communication dated 08-07-2015 (at Page No 19-A) annexed to the petition, which is made by the office of Tahsildar to concerned committee shows that claim had been submitted to the Committee.

4.

In view of aforesaid, order is not amenable and faulted on any ground. Writ petition, as such, stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Sd/- ( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. ) MTK