The High Court at Nagpur dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the nomination of two councillors. The bench held the petition barred by laches due to a three-year delay, coinciding with the petitioner's own lack of diligence.
The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed with no costs awarded.
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.
pil25.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.25 OF 2016 Gajanan Nilkanthrao Kuleriya
..vs..
The Collector, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal and ors
....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders
Shri R.S. Sundaram, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pravin Deshmukh, counsel for R-3. Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, counsel for R-4. Shri Ambarish Joshi, AGP for R-1 & 2.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 18, 2016.
Heard.
The petitioner challenges the nomination of respondent Nos.3 and 4 as nominated Councillors.
Though learned counsel for the petitioner has urged various grounds, we are inclined to dismiss the P.I.L. only on the ground of latches.
Undisputedly, resolution is passed to nominate respondent Nos.3 and 4 by Municipal Council on 28.12.2012. The petition is filed on 4.1.2016 i.e. after a period of three years and one month. The only explanation given in the P.I.L. is that when in the month of October, 2015 the petitioner had discussion with one Shri Rajabhau Raut, he came to know that respondent
.....2/-
pil25.16
2
No.4 was illegally nominated. That shows that the petitioner is diligent in the affairs of Municapl Administration.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that only such persons, who are having specialization in the knowledge of Municipal Administration, are entitled to be nominated. An event of nomination must have been received vide publication in the newspaper after respondent Nos.3 and 4 were nominated. A person who is not having knowledge of important event taking in the Municipal Council cannot have locus to say that the persons who are nominated do not have sufficient knowledge in the Municipal Administration.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the P.I.L. deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches.
The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.
No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
!! BRW !!
.....3/-
pil25.16
3
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Order/Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Order.
Uploaded by : Bhushan R.Wankhede. Uploaded on : - 19/08/2016 (Personal Assistant)
...../-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation challenging the nomination of councillors can be disposed of on the ground of laches after a delay of over three years.
Whether a petitioner lacking knowledge of relevant publication events has locus standi to challenge the qualifications of nominated councillors.
Gajanan Nilkanthrao Kuleriya
The Collector, Yavatmal
respondent No.3
respondent No.4
B.R. Gavai
V.M. Deshpande
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
