This PIL petition regarding the election to a gram panchayat was dismissed in limine. The Court held that no case for invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out despite prayers challenging the election.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
P.I.L. NO.103 OF 2005
Balbhim Ramdas Misal Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents
Mr.P.B.Shah for the petitioner.
Mr.P.M.Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 3 and 5.
Mr.R.V.More for the respondent no.2.
Mr.J.S.Deo for the respondents 6 to 16.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ .
DATED : 15th February 2006
P.C.
Heard Mr.P.B.Shah, the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
| 2. | The | election | to | the | gram | panchayat | has |
to be |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| challenged | in | accorda | nce | with | the | statutory | provisions. | |||
| We | are | satisfied | that | pray | ers | made | in |
the | writ | petition |
| cannot | be | granted. | No | case | for | invo | cation | of | writ |
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is made out.
(R. M. LODHA, J.)
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the election to the gram panchayat was challenged in accordance with statutory provisions warranting writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Balbhim Ramdas Misal
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Loda
Anoop V. Mota
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
