Petitioner challenged the caste validity certificate of Respondent No.4, an elected corporator's son. Court held that since the Vigilance Cell supported Respondent No.4's claim, no interference was warranted, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Writ Petition dismissed; Notice of Motion also disposed of.
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.
nmwl.187-2015
1
Dond
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION (LODG) NO.187 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION (lodg) NO.3408 OF 2014
Ashok Kumarayaa Kodam ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.
Mr. R.C. Mendadkar for Petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. V.M. Thorat, for Respondent No.4.
CORAM: B.R. GAVAI &
A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
DATE : 25th March 2015.
P.C.:
1 The Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by
the caste validity certificate granted in favour of the Respondent No.4.
2 The Petitioner claims to be a voter from the said ward from
which the Respondent No.4 contested the election. The election were held
in the year 2012 and the Petitioner had contested against one Anusha Kodam. In the said election, said Anusha Kodam was elected. However,
nmwl.187-2015
2
the Petitioner challenged the validity granted in her favour. The claim of the said candidate was found to be invalid and that invalidation was upheld upto the Apex Court.
3 It is the contention of the Respondent No.4 that in view of the deeming provisions, the Respondent No.4 who has held next highest number of votes, is entitled to be declared elected. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.4 is already declared as such in March 2015. However, the contention of the Respondent No.4 is that on account of interim relief granted in the present petition, he is not yet in a position to officiate as a Corporator .
4 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law for two reasons, firstly, no reasons are given and secondly enquiry by the Vigilance Cell is not conducted as per law laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in 1994(6) SCC 241.
5 We have perused the impugned order. The impugned order specifically deals with the documents which are pertaining to the
nmwl.187-2015
3
Respondent No.4's uncle as well as aunt from paternal side. Perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the Vigilance Cell has also supported the claim of the Respondent no.4. In that view of the matter, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
6 In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In view of
dismissal of the Petition, nothing survives in the Notice of Motion and the
same is also disposed of.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the caste validity certificate granted to Respondent No.4 should be interfered with despite lack of specific reasons in the impugned order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal DevelopmentReferred¶3
Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in 1994(6) SCC 241 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumarayaa Kodam
State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.4
B.R. Gavai
A.S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
