Dismissed

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

Bombay HC4 Feb 2012WP/1145/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Returning Officer's rejection of election nomination due to alleged lack of proposer and seconder details. Court dismissed petition, holding alternative remedy under Section 33 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act available, avoiding interference with election process.

What did the court decide?

Return of the petition dismissing the challenge to the Returning Officer's decision.

Mr. Faisal Banaraswala Vs the State Election Commissioner… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 114512

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

vgm CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1145 OF 2012

¶5

Faisal Banaraswala

¶6

S/o. Haji Mohammed Yusuf Banaraswala ...Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State Election Commissioner, Maharashtra State, & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Gunratan Sadavarte for the Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Irfan Shaikh i/by Mr. S.B. Shetye for Respondent No. 1

¶11

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND

¶12

P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2012 (In Chambers)

¶13

P.C .:-

¶14

This matter has been produced before us by the office at

¶15

4.15 p.m. on the basis of instructions given by the Registrar (Judicial-I),

¶16

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

¶17

2 114512

¶18

This petition, essentially, takes exception to the decision of the Returning Officer dated 2^nd February, 2012. The petition is moved in Chambers because the last date of accepting nomination is said to be today, i.e., 4^th February, 2012.

¶19

According to the petitioner, nomination form, as filed by him, contains all necessary particulars and details and was filed in conformity with the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter, “the Act”, for short). Nonetheless, the Returning Officer has opined that all particulars pertaining to proposer and seconder have not been furnished in the nomination form.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to point out that the nomination form, which is appended to this petition, discloses that the proposer and seconder have duly signed the form and their names have also been mentioned. In our opinion, this grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by way of remedy under Section 33 of the Act, which provides that wrongful rejection of nomination is a ground for setting aside the election.

¶21

3 114512

¶22

Since alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, we decline to exercise Writ Jurisdiction, more particularly, keeping in mind the well-established legal position that the High Court should be loath to interfere in Writ Jurisdiction with the process of election of local Authorities. Hence, petition is dismissed.

¶23

Nothing in this order be construed as final opinion on the merits of the controversy. The petitioner will be free to pursue other remedy permissible in law, which will have to be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law. All questions in that behalf are left open.

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Faisal Banaraswala v. the State Election Commissioner, Maharashtra State 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

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.

Mrs. Savita Sukhdev Sonavane Vs Pune Municipal Corporation 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.