Dismissed

Mrs. Savita Sukhdev Sonavane v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Feb 2012WP/1143/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to retain a rejected nomination paper for election. The court held that since an efficacious alternative remedy (election dispute) was available for challenging the Returning Officer's decision on caste certificate grounds, writ jurisdiction was not exercised.

What did the court decide?

None; writ jurisdiction declined due to availability of alternative remedy.

Mrs. Savita Sukhdev Sonavane Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 114312

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

vgm CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1143 OF 2012

¶5

Savita Sukhdev Sonavane ...Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. S.S. Pakale with Ms. Ranjana Todankar for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Irfan A. Shaikh i/by Mr. S.B. Shetye for Respondent No. 3

¶10

Mr. M.I. Patel, A.G.P., for Respondent No. 4

¶11

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2012 (In Chambers)

¶12

P.C .:-

¶13

This matter has been produced before us by the office at 4.00 p.m. on the basis of instructions given by the Registrar (Judicial-I),

¶14

in view of the extreme urgency pointed out by the counsel for the

¶15

petitioner.

¶16

We have heard the counsel for the parties.

¶17

2 114312

¶18

The relief claimed in this petition is to set aside the rejection of the petitioner’s nomination as ordered by respondent No.1, and, instead, to direct respondent No. 1 to accept her nomination paper.

¶19

It is open to the petitioner to raise the issues referred to in this petition by way of election dispute. Since alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, the question of exercising Writ Jurisdiction does not arise.

¶20

The counsel for the petitioner, however, was at pains to point out that the decision of the Returning Officer is nothing short of being perverse. In that, the petitioner had produced the original Caste Certificate, which was allegedly missing from the original record of the Returning Officer. Although it was submitted by the petitioner along with the nomination form, the Returning Officer proceeded to reject the nomination form presumably on the ground that the Caste Certificate was not accompanying the nomination form of the petitioner. As aforesaid, the decision of the Returning Officer can be questioned by way of election dispute as one of the grounds for election dispute is of wrongful rejection of nomination.

¶21

3 114312

¶22

Since other remedy is available to the petitioner, we decline to exercise our Writ Jurisdiction, keeping in mind the settled legal position that, at this stage of the election process, the Court should be loath to exercise Writ Jurisdiction.

¶23

This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶24

P.D. KODE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Mrs. Savita Sukhdev Sonavane v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Savita Sukhdev Sonavane v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh R. Gokal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Vishwanath Pathwe Vs Dig Prison Western Region Pune and Anr.

Chintaman Sitaram Kedari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Faisal Banaraswala Vs the State Election Commissioner, Maharashtra State and Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Sahadev Sawan Vs Mr. Sanjay Sarvade, Returning Officer and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sayeed Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rahim and Ors.