Dismissed

Shir. Nagnth Praladh Yadav v. Shri. Sudhir Ashok Randive and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2013WP/3391/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a quadruple-judgment disqualifying him from the Pandharpur Municipal Council post for having five children after the relevant date. The bench dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner refused to file an affidavit denying paternity, deeming the lower authorities' findings non-interferable and the petition's conduct atrocious.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Shir. Nagnth Praladh Yadav Vs Shri. Sudhir Ashok Randive and Ors. — Election Law | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP3391-13.sxw

¶2

JP CHAVAN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3391 OF 2013

¶5

Nagnth Praladh Yadav ... Petitioner Versus Sudhir Ashok Randive ... Respondents and others

¶6

Mr. P. S. Dani i/by Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe for the petitioner Mr. Ajay Joshi for Respondent No.1

¶7

Ms. A. D. Vhatkar, AGP for Respondent No.6

¶8

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 20 JUNE 2013

¶9

P.C.

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Respondent no.1 -Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune rejecting the Appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of Collector, Solapur, disqualifying the petitioner as a Corporator of Pandharpur Municipal Council.

¶11

The Respondent No.1 had filed a proceeding under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Township Act, 1965 against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, while submitting nomination for the purpose contesting election of Pandharpur Municipal Corporation, did not disclose the fact that the petitioner has five children. It was contended that after 12 September 2001, which is the relevant date, the petitioner had more than two children and therefore he was not entitled to remain on the post of a

¶12

1/3

¶13

WP3391-13.sxw

¶14

member of the Municipal Council.

¶15

3 The Collector, after considering the material record on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner had five children. Priti – Daughter born on 20/07/1996; Sonali- Daughter born on 06/01/1998; PratikshaDaughter born on 04/01/2001; Lokesh- Son, born on 03/01/2003 and Ghyatik- Son born on 23/02/2005. Accordingly, the proceedings filed by the respondent no.3 allowed by the Collector by order dated 16 November, 2012 and the petitioner was held to be disqualified to continue on the post of Corporator. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. The Divisional Commissioner, considered the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 19 November 2011 in which the petitioner had admitted that he had more than two children on 12 September 2001. The Divisional Commissioner also considered the material on record and found that two children Lokesh and Ghyatik ,were born to the petitioner after the relevant date 12 September, 2001 in addition to the three children born earlier. Accordingly the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the Appeal by order dated 15 March 2012.

¶16

Considering the rising tendency of disowning children solely for avoiding disqualification, which needs to be strongly deprecated, this Court had enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner will an affidavit in this court that boys Lokesh and Ghyatik are not the children of the petitioner and that the petitioner does not claim any relation with them whatsoever and will not claim it for any purposes. No such affidavit is coming forth. Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly submits that the petitioner has decided not to file such affidavit. Thus, by not filing the affidavit in this Court, it is clear that the stand was taken only for the purpose of saving his seat in the Municipal Council. The conduct of the petitioner is atrocious to say the least. Such conduct

¶17

WP3391-13.sxw

¶18

cannot be countenanced in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶19

3.. Apart from this position, both the authorities under the Act, after considering the material on record, including the affidavit of the petitioner himself, has recorded a finding that the fact that the petitioner has given birth to two more children after the relevant date. This finding cannot be interfered with.

¶20

Considering the overall position, no interference is warranted in the writ jurisdiction. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶21

(N. M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶22

3/3

Shir. Nagnth Praladh Yadav v. Shri. Sudhir Ashok Randive and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shir. Nagnth Praladh Yadav v. Shri. Sudhir Ashok Randive 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

Gulshan J. Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Shri. Sitaram Gopal Patil Vs Rendal Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. a. G. Jadhav Vs Shamsuddin S. Charaniya and Ors.

Ganpat Mahadev Patil (Since Decd) through Lrs, Kapil Ganpat Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust, through Managing Trustee, Shantinath Jangonda Patil Vs Shri. Mahaveer Jangonda Patil and Anr.

Shri. Mohamad Hanif Fazlur Rahiman Rangrej Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.