Dismissed

Popat Dhondiram Chavan, v. Meena Sanjay Chavan and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2011WP/4309/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the acceptance of nomination papers for a Grampanchayat election, the court examined the petitioner's contention that a respondent candidate was disqualified under Section 14(j-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 due to having four children. The court held that the provisions of the second proviso to Section 14(j-1) rendered it difficult to hold the candi

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the acceptance of nomination papers was dismissed for lack of merits.

Popat Dhondiram Chavan, Vs Meena Sanjay Chavan and Ors. — Election Law | Bombay HC (2011)

PPD

4.WP.4309-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4309 OF 2011

¶6

Shri Popat Dhondiram Chavan.

¶7

..Petitioner. Vs.

¶8

Sau Meena Sanjay Chavan and 4 others.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr.R.N. Gite, for the Petitioner. Mrs.M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Mr.Sandeep Shinde, for Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 24^th JUNE, 2011

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the State-Respondent Nos.4 & 5.

¶15

The grievance of the Petitioner is in respect of acceptance

¶16

of nomination papers of Respondent No.1 by the Returning Officer, who is contesting election of Member of Anjaneri Grampanchayat, Taluka - Trambakashwar, District – Nashik. It is contended that the date of filing of nomination paper was between 11.6.2011 to 13.6.2011. It is contended that on the

¶17

date of filing of the nomination, Respondent No.1 was having

¶18

¶19

4.WP.4309-11

¶20

four children and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 14(j-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, Respondent No.1 was not eligible to be a Member of the Grampanchayat and, therefore, the Returning Officer ought to have rejected the nomination paper of Respondent No.1 on this count.

¶21

Assistant Government Pleader states that affidavit dated

¶22

24.6.2011 is filed today on record on behalf of Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Para-5 of the said affidavit dated 24.6.2011 reads thus :-

¶23

“5. I say that as far as Respondent No.4 is concerned, she had 3 children before the cut off date i.e. 13.09.2000 and therefore Section 14(j-1), this does not qualify the Respondent No.4. Further, as far as 4^th child of Respondent No.4 is concerned it was born on 31.07.2001 which was within a period of 1 year from the date of cut off date and therefore this provision also does not disqualify the Respondent No.4 and therefore, applying the provision of Section 14(j-1) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, Respondent No.4 is not disqualified to be a member of Panchayat. ..”

¶24

Learned A.G.P., therefore, contended that in view of the above facts, Respondent No.1 cannot be said to be not qualified

¶25

to contest the election as contended by the Counsel for the Petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 14(j-1) of the

¶26

¶27

4.WP.4309-11

¶28

Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the date of birth of the fourth child mentioned in the affidavit is incorrect, and in fact the fourth child is born on 30.7.2001.

¶29

Be that as it may, whether the fourth child was born to Respondent No.1 on the date mentioned in the affidavit or as contended by the Counsel for the Petitioner, either way, in view of the second proviso to Section 14(j-1), it is difficult for us to hold that Respondent No.1 is not eligible to contest the Grampanchyat election. In that view of the matter, Petition suffers from lack of merits. Same is dismissed.

Popat Dhondiram Chavan, v. Meena Sanjay Chavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Popat Dhondiram Chavan, v. Meena Sanjay Chavan 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

A Jabber Saheblal Sheikh Vs the Special District Social Welfare Officer, and Ors.

Shrikrishnaprasad Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Asstt Registrar, Co. Operative Societies

Ashok Bhausaheb Arage Vs Collector Kolhapur and Ors.

Chintaman Namdeo Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prashant Prabhakar Patil Vs Suhas Vishnu Patil and Ors.

Nitin Shashikant Jadhav Vs Tejaswita N Jadhav