A two-judge bench declined writ jurisdiction to question the Returning Officer’s rejection of a nomination objection, deeming it an election dispute barred by constitutional amendment.
Petition dismissed as relief to question the Returning Officer’s decision is barred by constitutional amendment.
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.
1381.12
1
SQP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1381 OF 2012
Shankar Govindram Lund & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.J.S.Chandnani for Petitioners.
Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Mr.S.B.Shetye for Respodnent No.2.
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND
N.M.JAMDAR, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 14, 2012.
P.C.
question the decision of the Returning Officer in rejecting the objection raised by the petitioners to the nomination of Respondent No.5, which grievance can be agitated by way of election dispute. We decline to exercise
writ jurisdiction. The petitioners have relied on the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Suleman Fakruddin Ansari vs.
S.B.Kulkarni & Anr. reported in 1963 BCI (0) 50.
1381.12
2
(N.M.JAMDAR, J.)
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to question the Returning Officer’s decision regarding a nomination objection.
Whether the constitutional amendment bars proceedings that would interdict the notified election process.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suleman Fakruddin Ansari vs. S.B.Kulkarni & Anr.Distinguished¶15
1963 BCI (0) 50
Shankar Govindram Lund
State of Maharashtra
A.M.KHANWILKAR
N.M.JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
