The court rejected the writ petition, holding that interference at this stage would stalling the election process unless a fraud on the constitution or statute is established, relying on Supreme Court precedents.
The writ petition is rejected.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5603 OF 2011 "Avinash Marutirao Naikwade and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
1
Mr.M.S. Karad, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. V.D. Rakh, AGP for respondent No.1.
CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & A.V. POTDAR, JJ.
DATE :- 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011.
PER COURT :-
1] Any interference at this stage would amount to stalling the election process, which is not permissible in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, in the matter of " Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar" reported in AIR 2000 SC 2979. Interference in such matters would be permissible only in the event a fraud on the constitution or on the statute is established by the party concerned. Reliance in this case an be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of " K. Venkatchalla Vs. State of Tamil Nadu" reported in AIR 1999 SC 172. Hence, the writ petitions is rejected.
grt/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the election process should be interfered with at this stage without evidence of constitutional fraud.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok KumarRelied on¶9
AIR 2000 SC 2979 · Who else cites this
K. Venkatchalla Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶9
AIR 1999 SC 172 · Who else cites this
Avinash Marutirao Naik and another
The State of Maharashtra and others
B.R. GAVAI
A.V. POTDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
