Petitioner filed writ petition challenging disqualification due to past conviction. Court held suspension of conviction does not negate disqualification. Petition rejected.
Petition rejected; no costs awarded.
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
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 1135 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 1135 OF 2011
***
1.HeardAdvocateMr.Mayurefor
Petitioner, Advocate Mr. Bhagat holding for
Mr. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and
learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
2.Petitioner is found disqualified for not
pointing out his conviction under section 39
(1) of Indian Electricity Act in his
nomination paper. Shri Mayure contends that
the conviction has been suspended by
Appellate Court and, therefore, petitioner
cannot be declared disqualified. His further
argument is as appeal is pending the
conviction has not attained finality. Shri
Bhagat for Respondent No.2 and learned A.G.P.
Mr. Korde support the impugned order. They
state the order of conviction is not stayed
by the Appellate Court.
3.It is apparent that Appellate Court has
merely suspended the conviction. The
2
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 1135 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders.
suspension of conviction does not wipe out
the same and hence view taken by lower
authority cannot be said to be either
erroneous or perverse. Petition is,
therefore, rejected. No costs.
[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
Dated:23/02/2011.
ans/1135
3 issues framed by the court
Whether suspension of conviction under Section 39(1) of Indian Electricity Act negates disqualification in nomination.
Whether pending appeal prevents declaration of disqualification.
Whether suspension wipes out conviction for qualification purposes.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Mayure
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court