Disposed

Zafar Ali Khan Mehmood Ali Khan Pathan v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Sept 2012WP/6784/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the ward formation for Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation elections, alleging procedural lapses and unsupported claims against a deponent. The court observed that election stages were complete. Instead of adjudicating the merits, the court directed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was allowed to file a comprehensive representation; the petition otherwise disposed of.

Zafar Ali Khan Mehmood Ali Khan Pathan Vs the State of Mah and… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) WP. 6784-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6784 OF 2012

¶4

Zafar Ali Khan Mehmood
Ali Khan Pathan

¶5

 Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and ors. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Zafar Ali Khan, Petitioner-in-person
Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the respondent-State
Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.2
Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶9

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 05.09.2012

¶10

ORAL ORDER:

¶11

1. Heard.

¶12

2.Petitioner's grievance is that the ward

¶13

formation for holding elections of Nanded Waghala

¶14

Municipal Corporation has been done against the
provisions of law and without taking into consideration

¶15

the settled norms and geographical locations. Copies of

¶16

the maps, which were provided to the petitioner, were not
signed by the authorized officer of the State Election

¶17

Commission. It is submitted that the objection
application filed by the petitioner was not considered by

¶18

WP. 6784-2012

¶19

the concerned authorities. The party in person submits
that he had filed objection in respect of the ward
formation on 28.5.2012 at Exhibit “H”. The party in
person submits that the State Election Commissioner
cannot delegate its powers to any other officer in the
State. For maintaining transparency in ward formation,
the State Election Commissioner shall consider the
objection himself or herself. The necessary documents in
this regard are not signed by the State Election
Commissioner personally. The party in person raised
objection to the filing of affidavit on behalf of the
respondent nos.3 and 4. It was submitted that certain
proceedings were initiated by the party in person against
the deponent. Therefore, it is requested that this
affidavit shall not be considered, as being filed by Mr.
Ratnakar Kantrao Waghmare.

¶20

3.Learned counsel for the State Election

¶21

Commission Mr. S.T. Shelke submitted that in accordance
with the order passed on 16.8.2011, all the Commissioners
in the State were authorized to take effective steps for
the purpose of ward formation. Accordingly, the steps

¶22

were taken and objections were invited for the said
purposes. The objections were to be filed between
22.5.2012 to 31.5.2012. Mr. Kunal Kumar, Collector,

¶23

(3) WP. 6784-2012

¶24

Aurangabad was authorized under the orders passed by the
State Election Commission to hear the objections.
Accordingly, the Collector has heard the objections under
the order passed on 7.6.2012 by the State Election
Commission. Accordingly, the authorized officer Mr.
Kunal Kumar has considered 119 objections on 15.6.2012
and hearing was conducted on that day. The report was
submitted by the authorized officer to the State Election
Commission on 18.6.2012. 102 objections were rejected and
in cases of remaining objections, instructions were
given. The State Election Commission accepted the report
by communication dated 21.6.2012.

¶25

4.It was submitted by the learned counsel Shri
S.T. Shelke that the authorized officers themselves have
conducted the hearing in accordance with the orders
passed by the State Election Commission. The learned
counsel submits that the State Election Commission had
issued communication on 3.9.2012 to the Commissioner,
Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation. The program for
holding elections has been prescribed by the Commission.
According to the prescribed programme, the election
programme is to commence from 20.9.2012.

¶26

(4) WP. 6784-2012

¶27

5.Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3
and 4 Shri Murar Deshpande submits that the Corporation
authorities have discharged their duties consequent to
the orders passed by the State Election Commission. The
Commissioner had signed the necessary maps, but while
providing copies thereof to others, the Commissioner need
not sign the map. Sofar as the objections raised by the
petitioner in the communication dated 28.5.2012 are
concerned, copy of which has been annexed at Exhibit H,
said communication refers to the allegations made against
Ratnakar Kantrao Ukkadgaonkar and the proceedings
initiated in the High Court vide Criminal Application no.
575 of 2012. It was contended in the said communication
that the ruling Congress party had wielded its pressure
for getting 50 corporators elected.

¶28

6.We have considered the material placed on
record. The proposed programme of elections is to
commence from 20.9.2012. The objections were invited to
the ward formation by issuance of public notice dated

¶29

14.5.2012 which is annexed at Exhibit E. Last date for
submitting objection was between 22.5.2012 to 31.5.2012.

¶30

During the said period, according to the petitioner,
communication at exhibit H dated 28.5.2012 was forwarded.

¶31

We have perused the said communication. We have also

¶32

(5) WP. 6784-2012

¶33

perused communication made by the petitioner prior to the
said date i.e. on 16.5.2012. The petitioner has some
suggestions to observe while the State Election
Commission exercised its powers in connection with the
steps to be taken for holding elections. The grievance
seems to be that the State Election Commission shall
itself take upon the work of ward formation and
authenticate the reports and maps prepared for the said
purposes. The party in person's grievance is that the
job of ward formation, finalization of the maps, reports
shall not be left to the officers who are authorized at
the local level but such performance of duties shall be
allowed to be done by higher authorities of the State.

¶34

7.The election program is to commence from
20.9.2012. All the substantial stages towards holding of
elections are completed.

¶35

8.The petitioner is entitled to file a

¶36

comprehensive representation to the State Election
Commission in respect of the wider submissions in the
shape of suggestions regarding the functioning of the
State Election Commission in holding elections.

¶37

9.It is further observed that this Court has not
addressed the issue in respect of the name of deponent

¶38

(6) WP. 6784-2012

¶39

i.e. respondent no.4. With the above observations, the

¶40

Petition stands disposed of.

¶41

 Sd/-Sd/-

¶42

 [M. T. JOSHI,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]
arp/

Zafar Ali Khan Mehmood Ali Khan Pathan v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zafar Ali Khan Mehmood Ali Khan Pathan v. the State of Mah 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

Ahmednagar Shahar Indira Pranit Magasvargiya Vidi Kamgaranchi Sahakari Gruha Nirman Sanstha Maryadi Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Vitthal Manikrao Bagal and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kamlabai Motolal Pande Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Deoyani Vasantrao Nikam @ Deoyani Nisarg Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Sec.Saraswati Shikshan Society Parli Vaijnath Vs Anjali Kautikrao Taur and Anr.

Pandharinath Shamrao Kayande and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.