Dismissed

Deepak Laxman Patil v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2013WP/146/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the election of a Village Panchayat member and seeking a stay on his participation. The Court allowed continued participation pending decision on the disqualification petition while directing the lower authority to dispose of the petition expeditiously. The writ was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; the lower authority was directed to decide the disqualification petition expeditiously.

Deepak Laxman Patil Vs the State of Mah… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.146/13

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO.146 OF 2013

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

Mr.P.B.Patil, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Kadam, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the State.

¶10

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶11

 Date : 09.01.2013.
PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The petitioner has filed disqualification petition on the ground that the Respondent No.2 is disqualified to be a member of Village Panchayat in view of Section 14(j-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, as the Respondent No.2 has a third child born after the cut off date.

¶14

Mr.Patil, learned counsel submits that the Respondent No.1 has orally rejected the stay petition filed by the petitioner. The Respondent No.2 on the face of it is disqualified to contest the election and to be the member. In view of Section 14(j-1) of the Act, the learned counsel contends that the Respondent No.1 has not

¶15

at all considered the said aspect of the matter. According to the

¶16

¶17

W.P.No.146/13

¶18

learned counsel, the Respondent No.1 was expected to give a reasoned order.

¶19

The Respondent No.2 is elected as a Member of the Village Panchayat. He is not yet disqualified by any competent authority. The proceedings for disqualification are still pending. In such circumstance, the person who is elected can not be restrained from participating in the meeting or taking part in the election of Sarpanch.

¶20

In light of that, no case for interference is made out. However, the Respondent No.1 shall decide the disqualification petition expeditiously as per statute.

¶21

The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

The observations made herein are only with regard to the stay petition.

¶23

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶24

Dt.09.01.2013. asp/office/wp146.13

¶25

¶26

W.P.No.146/13

Deepak Laxman Patil v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Laxman Patil v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Dr. Parveen Nurrodin Siddhiqui Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shaikh Mohammad Shaik Ismiel and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vinod Rajaram Zope. Vs Dhanraj Pandurang Mahajan (L.Rs.)Yuraj and Others.

Shaikh Musa Shaikh Umar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nisha Sadashiv Rohom Vs Raosaheb Baburao Katore and Ors.

Anil Shahaji Bhutekar Vs the Addl. Commissioner, Abad Div. and Ors.