2009 (3 )  SCR 621 KESHAV

v. SHIVAJIRAO & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 1178 of 2009) FEBRUARY 24, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Taken on Board.  

2. Heard Learned counsel for the parties.  

3. Leave granted.

4. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of  

the Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench. By the impugned order, the High Court  

directed that the present appellant's name be deleted from the voters list. The High  

Court  entertained  the  writ  petition  primarily  on  the  ground  that  the  election  

programme was not declared yet.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the election programme was  

published on 17th February, 2009. It appears from the order of the High Court that  

the matter was reserved for orders on 11.2.2009 and the judgment was delivered on  

20.2.2009.

6. From the details of the election programme it appears that the last date for  

getting  the  nomination  form  is  24.2.2009  and  the  last  date  for  scrutiny  of  the  

nomination form is 25.2.2009 and date of the publication of the nomination form is  

26.2.2009.  The  date  of  the  election  is  29.3.2009  and  the  date  of  counting  is  

30.3.2009.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that apparently the name of  

the appellant is not entitled to be included in the voter list because the cut–off date is  

30.6.2007 and the appellant was enrolled on 14.7.2007 i.e. after the cut–off date.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the interpretation put by the  

High Court is not correct.

9. We need go into this question in view of the order we propose to pass. Let  

the petitioner's nomination form be scrutinized. It is open to the respondent to raise  

objection about the entertainability of the nomination paper. We make it clear that we  

have  not  expressed  any  opinion  about  the  validity  of  the  nomination  form  or  

otherwise. Needless to say the objection, if  any, filed by the respondent shall  be  

considered in its proper perspective uninfluenced by any observations made by the  

High Court. Further, if any person has any grievance regarding the determination of  

validity,  or  otherwise  of  the  nomination  form  available  statutory  remedy  can  be  

availed. The order of the High Court is set aside.

10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.