This PIL challenging the election of Maharashtra Legislative Council members was dismissed as non-maintainable since the petitioner was not a candidate, and grounds were barred under Article 212 of the Constitution.
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.
PIL.137/2010
1
acd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 137 OF 2010 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO.21436 OF 2010
Yogesh Subhash Kakade.
...Petitioner
Vs.
Dipti Ashok Chavdhari & Ors..
...Respondents.
Mr. R.Y. Jahagirdar, Senior counsel along with Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni, for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, G.P. for Respondent No.18..
CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH C.J.AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2010.
P.C.
1] What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India purporting to be Public Interest Litigation is the election of respondent nos.1 to 10 as members of the Legislative Council of the State of Maharashtra.
2] The petitioner was not one of the candidates for the said election, and as such this petition purporting to be P.I.L is not
PIL.137/2010
2
maintainable. Even otherwise the grounds of challenge sought to be raised in this petition are barred by the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution of India. The Article 212 (1) provides that the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. The reliefs sought against Returning Officer are also barred by the provision sub-Article-2 of Article 212 of Constitution of India, which provides that no officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining oder, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any courts in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.
3] In view of the above, this petition itself is not maintainable. We are, therefore, not permitting the petitioner to amend the petition to raise more grounds for challenge.
In the circumstances, the petition stands dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a PIL challenging the election of Legislative Council members is maintainable when the petitioner was not a candidate.
Whether challenges to the validity of proceedings in the State Legislature are barred under Article 212 of the Constitution.
Whether courts have jurisdiction over the Returning Officer regarding exercise of powers under Article 212.
Yogesh Subhash Kakade
Dipti Ashok Chavdhari & Ors.
Mohit S. Shah
S. C. Dharmadhikari
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
