Dismissed

Baban Shankarrao Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2012WP/10/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an election nomination paper due to income eligibility. The court held that disputed questions of fact could not be decided in the writ petition and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Rule 88.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an election petition or dispute under Rule 88 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Rules, 1967, if need a

Baban Shankarrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Election Law | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. 10.2012

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2012

¶5

Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 12/01/2012.

¶6

Mr. S.B.Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K.Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State.

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶9

The nomination paper of respondent no. 4 is accepted by the appellate authority. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶10

Mr. Ghatol Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the position as on the date of filing of the nomination form is taken into consideration while considering the eligibility of the candidate. The petitioner was seeking to contest from economically backward category. On the said date, the certificate was produced along with nomination paper by the petitioner showing that his income is Rs. 21,000/- per

¶11

2 W.P. 10.2012

¶12

annum. The nomination paper was rightly rejected by the Returning Officer. According to the learned counsel, subsequently, in Appeal the certificate of his income of Rs. 20,000/- per annum was produced and on the basis of the same the Appeal has been allowed, which is not permissible. The authority can not consider the position after the date of filing of the nomination paper. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Ravi Amrutrao Bagde V/s The Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati & Ors. Reported in 2006 ( 1 ) ALL MR – 781 and in the case of Bhaulal Rajdhar Sonavane V/s Returning Officer and others reported in 1994 ( 2 ) Mh.L.J. - 1439 . The learned counsel contends that the process of election need not be disturbed. Without disturbing the process of election, the present petition can be decided and there is no impediment to entertain the petition in such cases. For the said purpose, reliance is placed on the Judgment in the case of Dinkar Uttamrao Patil and another V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2010 ( 5 ) ALL MR – 133 and another Judgment of this Court in the case of Dalsing S/o Shamsing Rajput V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2006 ( 3 ) Mh.L.J. - 592 .

¶13

The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader supports the order.

¶14

3 W.P. 10.2012

¶15

From the election programme, it would be seen that all stages in the process of election are complete except voting, which has to take place on 22/01/2012. The matter involves disputed questions of facts. A person whose income is below Rs. 21,000/- per annum is considered to be below poverty line for the purpose of revenue department and for the purpose of Co-operative department, the said ceiling is Rs. 20,000/- per annum. The certificate which is produced showing the income of Rs. 21,000/- per annum is based on an affidavit which says that the income of the said person is not more than Rs. 21,000/- per annum.

¶16

What was the income of the petitioner as on the date of filing the nomination would be disputed questions of fact, which can not be gone into in this Writ Petition. There is no dispute on the proposition that the eligibility of the candidate as on the date of filing the nomination has to be considered. As the matter involves the disputed questions of facts and the petitioner is having remedy to file election petition/dispute, if need arises under Rule 88 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing [ Regulation ] Rules, 1967 [ For short, ‘ Rules of 1967 ’ ], I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

¶17

The Writ Petition as such is dismissed with the liberty to

¶18

4 W.P. 10.2012

¶19

the petitioner to file the election petition/dispute as provided under the Rules of 1967 if need arises and if so advised. No costs.

¶20

It is made clear that I have not opined on the merits of the matter. All points are kept open.

¶21

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶22

KNP/W.P. 10.2012

Baban Shankarrao Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Shankarrao Deshmukh 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

Bapusaheb Babanrao Nimbalkar Vs Sayyed Abdul Jabbar Gulamnabi and Anr.

Vaishali Sanjay More Vs Sulochanabai Vasant Londhe Thr Power of Att Anil Vasantrao Londhe and Ors.

Vimalbai Chandu Zunjare Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded and Ors.

Balasaheb Bapurao Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chintaman Bhagwan Phalak, Died Thr. L.Rs. Bhaskar and Ors. Vs the Bhusawal Municipal Council, Thr. Its Chief Officer

Govind Kashinath Kakde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.