The petitioner challenged the rejection of his election nomination paper. The High Court held that statutory remedies were available and declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226.
The petition was rejected as statutory remedies were available.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp4014
1
ssp
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4014 OF 2014
Office Notes, Office
Memorandam of Coram,
appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders
Mr.Maruti Mura Vagare the Petitioner in person
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
A.S.CHANDURKAR,JJ.
DATE : JUNE 10,2014.
P.C.
1The petitioner had filed a
nomination paper for contesting the
election from 44 Sangli Loksabha
Constituency held recently. By order
dated 27th March 2014, the nomination
paper filed by the petitioner has been
rejected by the Returning Officer.
Statutory remedies are available to the
petitioner.
2Therefore, we decline to entertain
this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Petition is
rejected by keeping the statutory
remedies of the petitioner open.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained in a matter where statutory remedies are available.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maruti Mura Vagare
None
A.S.OKA
A.S.CHANDURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court