The High Court held that a PIL challenging an election is not maintainable under Section 80 of the RPA, 1951, as such challenges must be filed via an election petition. The petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability and locus.
Petition dismissed for lack of maintainability and locus.
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.
36 pil-st-6503-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST) NO.6503 OF 2016
Shri Arvind Dattaram Rane & Anr.
..Petitioners
v/s.
Shri Raj Khangarji Purohit & Ors.
..Respondents
Ms. Manda P. Loke for the Petitioners. Mr.M.V.Mali, AGP for the State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ. DATED : JULY 25, 2016.
P.C.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
1 of 1
pps
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a PIL challenging the election of a respondent is maintainable under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the petitioners have locus to challenge the election of the respondent no.1.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Arvind Dattaram Rane & Anr.
Shri Raj Khangarji Purohit & Ors.
Ranjit More
Anuja PrabhuDESSAI
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
