Dismissed

Mr. Padmakar Dnyanoba Bhujbal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2013WP/7496/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought to restrain the election of an Up-Sarpanch on grounds of disputed fact regarding vacancy. The Court held that the matter involved disputed questions of fact and could not be considered under writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking writ of Mandamus and Certiorari to stop the election process due to disputed vacancy was dismissed.

Mr. Padmakar Dnyanoba Bhujbal Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

9p wp.7496.13.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7496 OF 2013

¶5

Mr.Padmakar Dnyanoba Bhujbal ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents ***

¶6

Mr.Chandrashekhar B. Kher i/b Mrs.Samika Kher-Ranade, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶7

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶8

Mr.A.V.Anturkar, Advocate for Intervener.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 19, 2013.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Mentioned. Not on regular board. Petition is shown under the caption of 'Production'.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. By the Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the

¶14

Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs :

¶15

(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue a Writ of Mandamus or writ, Certiorari, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 not to start the election process of Up-Sarpanch of Res. No.7 as per his notice dated Nil, of which the election process is not started and

¶16

1 / 3

¶17

Shraddha Talekar P.A.

¶18

9p wp.7496.13.doc

¶19

is to be started on 20/08/2013 onwards, under any pretext and that too by assuming that post of Deputy Sarpanch is vacant, in spite of the fact that it is not so vacant and the cancellation proceeding of Resolution No.38 filed by Petitioner, is pending before appropriate authority.

¶20

(b) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or writ, order or direction, to Res.No.3 to stop at once and not to act upon his intended election program of Up Sarpanch of Res.No.7, which starts from 20/08/2013.

¶21

¶22

(d) Cost of this Petition be provided.

¶23

(e) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deem to fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

2 According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.7 has not tendered his resignation and as such the post of Deputy Sarpanch has not fallen vacant. It is, therefore, contended that the election which is to be held for the post of Deputy Sarpanch by Respondent No.3 should not be started on 20^th August 2013 onwards.

¶25

3 It is the contention of the Petitioner that this post has, in fact, not fallen vacant.

¶26

2 / 3

¶27

Shraddha Talekar P.A.

¶28

9p wp.7496.13.doc

¶29

4 In our view, the Petition which is filed by the Petitioner, cannot be entertained since it contains disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into by this Court which exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Petition is dismissed.

¶30

[K. R. SHRIRAM, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶31

3 / 3

¶32

Shraddha Talekar P.A.

Mr. Padmakar Dnyanoba Bhujbal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Padmakar Dnyanoba Bhujbal v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Cosmos Realtors, through Suraj Parmar Vs the Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane, through Commissioner and Anr.

Shri. Damu Ladu Khade (Since Decd) through Lrs, Shri. Anil Damu Khade Vs the Collector, Pune and Ors.

Shri. Mukund Nana Gawari Vs the Collector, Pune and Ors.

Orchid Hotels (Pune) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Tanisha Medical and General Stores, through Prop. Mr. Shankarlal Gulabji Bhati Vs the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Natwarsinh Keshavbhai Solanki Vs Shri. Sevantilal Mangilal Shah and Ors.