Dismissed

Babasaheb Ramrao Patil and Ors. v. the State Election Commission, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2007PIL/60/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed PIL prayers (b), (c) as unwarranted under Article 226. It held prayer (e) regarding framing a policy to curb mass withdrawal of candidature was not entertainable. Court left policy matter to respondents.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Prayers (b) and (c) rejected; Prayer (e) not entertained; Respondents directed to examine matter.

Babasaheb Ramrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 60 OF 2007

¶5

 Babasaheb Ramrao Patil & Ors... ... Petitioner.
 Versus

¶6

 The State Election Commission,
 Mumbai & Ors. .... ... ... Respondents.

¶7

 Mr. A.M.Kulkarni for the Petitioner.
 Mr.V.P.Malvankar, AGP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶9

DATED : 12TH JULY, 2007.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for

¶12

 the petitioner for some time.

¶13

 2. We are of the considered view that prayers (b) and
 (c), as formulated, are not maintainable as they do
 not fall within the ambit and scope of jurisdiction
 exercisable by this Court under Article 226 of the
 Constitution of India. In regard to prayer (e), it is
 stated that respondent no.1 should frame a policy to
 deal with and curb such eventualities of mass
 withdrawal of candidature. This is a matter which
 cannot be examined and in fact even would not be
 entertainable by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It

¶14

 -: 2 :-

¶15

 is settled principle of law that no mandamus can be
 directed by the writ court in relation to the matter
 which is within the competency of the legislature of
 the respective State. However, we leave it for the
 respondents to examine this matter and pass
 appropriate order, if they so desire and consider it
 appropriate.

¶16

 3. With this direction, this petition is disposed of.
 Parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶17

 Sd/-

¶18

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

 Sd/-

¶20

SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.

Babasaheb Ramrao Patil and Ors. v. the State Election Commission, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babasaheb Ramrao Patil and Ors. v. the State Election Commission, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Pundlik Hargode Vs the Administrator, Cidco and Ors.

R.C.Kotiankar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahadev Bapu Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dadasaheb Dnyadeo Jagtap and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil H. Lalwani Vs the Executive Engineer- the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and Ors.

Atmasantulana Village Pvt. Ltd. Vs Krishnkumar Jugalkishore Kedia and Ors.

Sayyed Asif Ali Noor Ali Vs the State Election Commission and Ors.

Maharashtra Law Graduate Association (Mlga) Vs Municipal Corporation of Thane and Ors.

Santosh Pundlik Hargode Vs the Administrator, Cidco and Ors.

R.C.Kotiankar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mumbai Pune Taxi Tourist Service Centre Vs the Pune Taximens Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Ors.

Small Scale Enterpreneurs Association and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Motisingh Pardeshi and Ors. Vs Yeola Municipal Council and Ors.

Nepean Sea Road Citizens Forum and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors.