RAMCHAND HIRACHAND KOTHADIYA Vs. DISTRICT DEPUTY COLLECTOR BARAMATI DIVISION POONA
LAWS(BOM)-1954-6-4
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 29,1954

RAMCHAND HIRACHAND KOTHADIYA Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT DEPUTY COLLECTOR, BARAMATI DIVISION, POONA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

OBANNA RAJU VS. COMMISSIONER and RETURNING OFFICER CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1972-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT SAMBHAJI PATIL VS. EXTRA ASSISTANT JUDGE [LAWS(BOM)-1960-2-15] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chagla, C.J. - (1.)These are three petitions by the residents of the village Nira, challenging the rejection "of the nomination papers submitted by them offering themselves as candidates for the triennial election of the Nira Gram Panchayat scheduled to be held on 15-7-1954.
(2.)Dealing with the first petition which is Spl. C. A. No. 1231 of 1954, the nomination paper on scrutiny was accepted by the Returning Officer. Respondent No. 4 went in appeal to the Prant Officer and the Prant Officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not qualified to be a member of the Village Panchayat and, therefore, ho rejected his nomination paper.
(3.)Now in the first place Mr. Tarkunde contended that there was no right of appeal given to any higher authority from the action of the Returning Officer in accepting a nomination paper. Mr. Tarkunde says that the right of appeal only arises if a nomination paper is rejected and that view Is supported byRule 10 of the rules framed under Section 108(c), Village Panchayats Act, and Rule 12 only gives a right of appeal against rejection of nominations to the Collector or to any other officer appointed by the State Government in that behalf. But Mr. Desai on behalf of the State has drawn our attention to a new rule which was subsequently framed which is Rule 12A which gives revisional Jurisdiction to the Collector or to an officer appointed by the State to revise an order passed by the Returning Officer accepting a nomination. Therefore, there was jurisdiction to revise the order of the Returning Officer. Mr. Desai says that although this power was exercised by the Prant Officer and not by the Collector, he was duly appointed by the State Government in that behalf. Mr. Desai for the time being is not in a position to lay his hands upon the necessary notification, but he has promised to show it to Mr. Tarkunde. Mr. Desai concedes-that if there is no such authorisation by the Government, then the order of the Prant Officer would be without jurisdiction. If the notification is not found, this matter may be mentioned to us again. We will deal with this petition on the assumption that the Prant Officer was duly authorised.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.