Mr.Somnath Makardhwaj Daundkar & Anr. v. The State Election Commission & Ors.

Firstly, the respondent No.1 did not invite fresh proposal to reserve Gat No.23 for the scheduled tribe and, secondly, time given to invite objections by the Collector and to decide the matter by Additional Commissioner is too short. 2

34.12-wp(st)

Learned counsel Mr.Warunjikar for the petitioners submitted that notice was issued on 28th December 2011 and as per the time table given by the respondents the objections were to be submitted till 31st December 2011 and today i.e. on 2nd January 2012 the Additional Commissioner is going to hear the objections. Thereafter the Collector will issue final notification in respect of reservation and the ward. Learned counsel argued that it was necessary for the respondents to invite fresh proposal which is not done and it was necessary to give sufficient time to the petitioners to submit their written objections on merits. He submits that if the said process is not stayed today, then tomorrow the Collector will issue notification and the petition will become infructuous.

Mr.Shetye, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 has already invited fresh proposals to reserve Gat No.23 and thereafter respondent No.1 has published programme which was communicated by the Collector by notice dated 28th December 2011 to the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the hearing of the objections of the petitioners and the other persons is going on at present before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. He submits that there is no merit in the petition and the process initiated by the Election Commissioner cannot be stalled.

Heard learned counsel for both parties at length. Learned counsel Mr.Warunjikar has insisted that a public 3

34.12-wp(st) notice ought to have been issued by the Collector which is requirement of law. However, we are of the opinion that this petition has a narrow scope. As per the order passed by this court on 23rd December 2011, we have to consider whether, as per the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.1, respondent No.1 has taken the steps or not. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the fresh proposals have been invited by respondent No.1 and thereafter impugned notice dated 28th December 2011 was issued. The only point that remains is about shortage of time. However, we do not consider it as a valid ground to stall the process of the election. It is informed to us that out of these two petitioners, one petitioner is already present before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and he will be heard and the other petitioner may fax his written submissions/objections to the office of the Divisional Commissioner or as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioners he may be heard on or before 8.00 p.m. today. This to us appears reasonable. Hence we pass the following order: ORDER The petitioners may appear before the Divisional Commissioner or ask their representative to be present before the Divisional Commissioner on or before 8.00 p.m. today. This shall not be treated as precedent but is an indulgence in view of the facts of this case. The Divisional Commissioner shall hear the petitioners or their representative and may consider any written submissions/ objections, if 4

34.12-wp(st) sent or submitted by them before him and decide the same as per the programme issued. It is made clear that no other relief is granted. disposed of. With this direction petition stands Learned counsel for respondent No.1 shall communicated this order telephonically to the Divisional Commissioner. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

(A.V.NIRDUDE, J.)