Dismissed

Sarojini Sarjerao Kapse v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Nov 2011WP/6390/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the election of a Gram Panchayat member. The Court held that the respondent had sufficiently complied with statutory provisions by submitting an undertaking, caste certificate, and an application for validity certificate with the nomination paper, as no objection was raised then.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition challenging the election is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Sarojini Sarjerao Kapse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Election Law | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6390 OF 2011

¶6

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

Mr.P.P. Khandagale Patil, advocate for the petitioner
Mr.R.P.Phatke, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State.
Mr.Vikram Patil, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Hon,
advocate for Respondent No.6.

¶9

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶10

 Date : 16.11.2011.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The petitioner had challenged the election of Respondent No.6 as a member of Gram Panchayat by filing a dispute before the Collector, on the ground that the Respondent No.6 has not submitted along with nomination the necessary undertaking stating that an application has been made for obtaining the validity certificate before the appropriate Committee and that the Respondent No.6 was disqualified to contest. There was violation of Section 30-1A and Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The learned counsel contends that the authorities

¶14

¶15

have not considered this aspect in correct perspective and have erroneously rejected the dispute and the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶16

Mr. Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No.6 submits that the Respondent No.6 had submitted the necessary undertaking and the application showing that the matter is with the Committee for obtaining validity certificate.

¶17

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the orders passed by the authorities. It has been observed in the judgment of the Divisional Commissioner that the Respondent No.6 had submitted the undertaking along with the nomination form, so also the caste certificate and the application showing that the same is made before the Committee for obtaining the validity certificate. Nobody had taken objection to the said nomination paper.

¶18

In view of the above, sufficient compliance is made of the provisions of Section 10-1A and Section 30-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act.

¶19

In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶21

Dt.16.11.2011. asp/office/wp6390.11

¶22

Sarojini Sarjerao Kapse v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojini Sarjerao Kapse v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Dadu Sahadu Gorakhe Vs Namdeo Mahadu Gorakhe and Ors.

Bhatabai Damu Koli and Anr. Vs Kamalbai Kadu Koli and Anr.

Ram Madhav Sathe Vs Janardhan Limbaji Sathe and Ors.

Sunil Bhavarlal Sharma Vs the Partner, Videocon India and Ors.

Hiraman L Saraf Dead Th Lrs Bhagwat H Saraf Dead Th Lrs Ujwala Rajendra Patil and Ors. Vs Madansingh Babusinh Rajput Deceased Th Lrs Chandrashekher Madansinh Rajput and Ors.

Sudam Baburao Bagul and Anr. Vs Mushir Ahmed Ayyub Shah and Rs