Dismissed

Balasaheb Bapurao Bhalerao v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2012WP/9/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging election disqualification where the petitioner's wife was registered as a trader voter. The bench held that disputed facts regarding co-residence and business interest could not be decided in Writ jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to file an election dispute.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to file an election dispute under the relevant Rules.

Balasaheb Bapurao Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Election Law | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. 9.2012

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 9 OF 2012

¶4

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. Mr. S.B.Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K.Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. A.N.Irpatgire, Advocate for Resp. No. 4. Mr. M.P.Kale, Advocate for Respondent No. 5. .....................

¶5

PER COURT :

¶6

Heard Mr. S.B.Ghatol Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

The nomination form of the petitioner is rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that the name of the wife of the petitioner appears in the valid voters’ list of traders constituency.

¶8

The learned counsel vehemently contends that the petitioner’s name appears in the valid voters’ list of agriculturists. The wife of the petitioner possesses “ C ’ class licence and the same does not come either within the meaning

¶9

2 W.P. 9.2012

¶10

of trader, commission agent or broker as is laid down under Rule 41 ( 2 ) ( 11 ) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Rules, 1967 [ For short, ‘ said Rules ’ ]. The learned counsel contends that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has an interest in the business run by his wife. The learned counsel further contends that the respondents are required to prove that the petitioner has any interest in the said alleged business of his wife. In absence of any proof, the petitioner could not have been disqualified from contesting the election. If at all, the respondents have a grievance, they could have challenged the election of the petitioner by way of filing election dispute under Rule 88 of the said Rules. The learned counsel further contends that the Appeal filed by the respondent no. 4 before the appellate authority was not within limitation.

¶11

The learned counsel relies on the following Judgments :

¶12

[ i ] Parshuram Nivrutti Magar and another V/s Dinkar Keshav Shinde and others reported in AIR 1985 BOMBAY – 390.

¶13

[ii] Venkatrao Narayanrao Ambekar V/s The Alma Sugar Mills and others reported in AIR 1985 BOMBAY – 390.

¶14

[iii] Dr. Kiran S/o Madhukar Saoji and others V/s The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2000-04

¶15

3 W.P. 9.2012

¶16

Mah, Co-op. C. – 624.

¶17

It is not disputed that the name of the wife of the petitioner appears as valid voter in traders constituency. The wife of the petitioner has not disputed this fact nor has raised any objection to her name appearing in the valid voters’ list of traders constituency. There is nothing on record to show at this stage that the petitioner and his wife are not residing jointly. The petition would involve disputed questions of facts. The same can not be decided in a Writ Petition. More over, the petitioner also has a remedy by filing an election petition or dispute as provided under the Rules. All the stages in the election are over except voting which is to take place on 22/01/2012.

¶18

In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

¶19

The Writ Petition as such is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing Election Petition/dispute as provided under the said Rules. No costs.

¶20

KNP/W.P. 9.2012

¶21

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶22

4 W.P. 9.2012

Balasaheb Bapurao Bhalerao v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Bapurao Bhalerao 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

Cases cited

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.

Baban Shankarrao Deshmukh 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.