Quashed

Radha Gokul Bhondve v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2013WP/38/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court quashed a Trial Court order that postponed the election of a Gram Panchayat Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch during the pendency of an election petition. Holding the petitioner's election was not yet set aside, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to usurp the powers of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act authorities. The order was absolute and relief was letter. The Trial Co

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside; application Exhibit 20 is rejected; the election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch proceeds; Trial Court to expedite hearing of election petition.

Radha Gokul Bhondve Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 WP 38.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2013

¶4

Sau Radha W/o Gokul Bhondve, Age : 22 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Jeba Pimpri, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶8

The Tahsildar, Beed, and Election Officer, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶9

The Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat, Jeba Pimpri, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶10

Presiding Officer, Gram Panchayat, Jeba Pimpri, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶11

Sunita Digambar Chavan, Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Agril. & H.H., R/o Jeba Pimpri, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶12

2 WP 38.13

¶13

Vilas S/o Dnyoba Naikwade, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Jeba Pimpri, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .. Respondents

¶14

Shri C. V. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. B. Ghatage, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri R. R. Imale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Shri Anirudha Nimbalkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

¶15

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2013.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶18

The present petitioner assails the order passed by the Trial Court on application below Exhibit 20 thereby postponing the election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat till the decision of the election petition.

¶19

Heard Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nimbalkar, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

¶20

Shri Nimbalkar, the learned counsel for the contesting

¶21

3 WP 38.13

¶22

respondents submits that on the face of record ex-facie it can be culled out that the present petitioner was ineligible to contest the election and in view of that, the Court has rightly passed the order.

¶23

The learned counsel further contends that the Court has not stayed the election of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, nor has prohibited the petitioner from participating in the election. The Court has only postponed the election of Sarpanch and Upasarpanch till the decision of the election petition. The same would not be akin to passing of prohibitory order. The learned counsel further contends that, even this Court has expedited the hearing of the election petition. In view of that also, the impugned order needs no interference. The learned counsel further contends that, if the elections of Sarpanch and Upasarpanch are allowed to proceed, then it would again create further complications and a person who is ex-facie ineligible to contest the election would participate in the election of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch which is not permissible.

¶24

Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Jagannath Pundlik and others Vs. Sukhdeo Onkar

¶25

4 WP 38.13

¶26

Wankhede and others reported in 1967 Mh. L. J. 126 .

¶27

With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been elected as member of Gram Panchayat. The election of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat are to be conducted as per the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and Rules framed thereunder.

¶28

A person elected cannot be restrained from participating in any election, unless and until his election is set aside. Vide impugned order the Court during the pendency of election petition has stayed the elections of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch by directing to postpone the election of Sarpanch and Upasarpanch. The Court would be usurping the powers of the authorities under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The elections of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch are to be held as per the provisions of the said Act and by the authorities enumerated in the said Act. The Civil Court would not have any jurisdiction to postpone the election of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch. The right of election petitioner today would be inchoate. He cannot complain any legal injury at this stage, when a petitioner would not be in a position to complain any legal injury, in that event, the petitioner would not be entitled for any interim orders.

¶29

5 WP 38.13

¶30

In the light of the above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, if the election petition is allowed the consequences would follow.

¶31

In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application Exhibit 20 is rejected.

¶32

Rule is made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs.

¶33

Needless to state that, I have not considered the merits of the election petition and have dealt with the matter only on the ground of powers of the Court to pass interim orders on an application. The Trial Court is already directed to expedite the hearing of the election petition and shall adhere to the said directions.

¶34

Sd/[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶35

bsb/Feb. 13

Radha Gokul Bhondve v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Gokul Bhondve 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deelip Shankar Padmar Vs Naval Dashrath Patil and Anr.

Govind Tukaram Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shasikala Vilas Kasture and Ors. Vs Chitra Prashant Kasture and Ors.

Suresh Bhimrao Jagdale Vs Vishnu Shridhar Mehunkar and Ors.

Pushpa Dyaneshwar Mahajan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bajirao Bhavsing Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another