Dismissed

Nitin Laxmanrao Bhargude Patil v. Election Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2007WP/8142/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected two writ petitions challenging ward gate formations in the Kolhapur and Satara districts. The court held that since final notifications were issued and the election program announced, it was too late to interfere. It dismissed the circular grievance as subject to a different forum. Related civil application was rendered infructuous and rejected.

What did the court decide?

Both the writ petitions and the subsequent Civil Application are rejected; the relief sought is denied due to delay after final notification.

Nitin Laxmanrao Bhargude Patil Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 WRIT PETITION NO.8142 OF 2006
 With

¶2

 WRIT PETITION NO.8151 of 2006

¶3

 ------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
 or directions and Registrar’s :
 orders. :

¶4

 ------------------------------------:------------------------------------

¶5

 Mr.Uday Warunjikar for petitioner.
 Mr.S.B.Shetye for respondent No.1.

¶6

 ------

¶7

CORAM : H.L GOKHALE, ACTING C.J. &
 V.M.KANADE, J.

¶8

DATED : 16th January 2007
 P.C. :
 1. Heard the learned Counsel

¶9

 for the parties in both the above
 Petitions.

¶10

 2. The first Petition i.e.

¶11

 Writ Petition No.8142 of 2006 is
 about the formation of ward gat in
 Khandala Taluka and the second
 Petition i.e. Writ Petition
 No.8151 of 2006 is about the
 formation of ward gat in the

¶12

 Mahabaleshwar Taluka at District

¶13

 Satara.

¶14

 3. The case of the

¶15

 petitioners in both the Petitions
 is that the objections were filed
 to the formation of the ward gat
 and those objections have not been
 considered properly by the
 Divisional Commissioner.

¶16

 4. A reply dated 8th January
 2007 has been filed on behalf the
 1st respondent pointing out that
 some 96 objections were received.
 In fact, the Divisional
 Commissioner, Pune Division,

¶17

 recommended some 33 objections out
 of these 96 to the State Election
 Commission, but the State Election
 Commission did not entertain those
 objections.

¶18

 5. In the second Petition,
 there is also an objection with

¶19

 respect to a Government Circular

¶20

 that the certificates are not to

¶21

 be issued to the claimants of

¶22

 Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe in
 Mahabaleshwar Taluka. That is the

¶23

 letter dated 21st September 2006
 from the Tahsildar, Mahabaleshwar.

¶24

 Mr.Warunjikar appearing for the
 petitioners makes a grievance with
 respect thereto as well.

¶25

 6. Now, what has happened is
 that both these Petitions were
 filed in November 2006. The
 election programme has been
 announced for this Zilla Parishad

¶26

 on 21st December 2006. The wards

¶27

 have already been finalized. The

¶28

 final Notification was issued on
 8th September 2006. This being
 the position, it is too late in

¶29

 the day to interfere into the

¶30

 ward formation.

¶31

 7. Both the above Petitions
 are rejected.

¶32

 8. As far as the grievance
 with respect to the circular not

¶33

 to grant certificates to the
 persons belonging to the Mahadeo

¶34

 Koli, Scheduled Tribe is
 concerned, it will be open for the
 petitioner concerned to challenge
 it in some other appropriate
 Forum.

¶35

 9. In view of the rejection
 of both the Petitions, nothing
 survives in Civil Application
 (Stamp) No.1023 of 2007 taken in
 Writ Petition No.8151 of 2006 and

¶36

 the same is rejected as rendered

¶37

 infructuous.

¶38

(ACTING C.J.)

¶39

 (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Nitin Laxmanrao Bhargude Patil v. Election Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Laxmanrao Bhargude Patil v. Election Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejaswini Sanjay Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balaji Mahadeo Charate Vs the State Election Commissioner and Ors.

M/S.Amit Petroleum Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra

Pratap Sarjerao Jadhav and Ors. Vs Balasaheb Abaji Khopade and Anr.

Dinesh Raghunath Mhatre Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mc Dowell and Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.